The URL can be used to link to this page

S-06-78 Staff Report.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION To: File S-2006-78 From: ifer Machuga, er Date: November 15, 2006 File: S-2006-78 Applicant: Viking Properties, 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......................................................................................................................................... 6 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.....................................................................................................9 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................9 Vt. APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................9 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................9 Viking Properties, Inc. File No. S-2006-0078 Page 2 of 10 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot addressed as 10222 — 240 Street Southwest into three 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 3A). The existing single family residence is to remain. A. Application 1. Applicant: Viking Properties, Inc. 2. Site Location: 10222 — 244`h Street Southwest (see Attachment 2). 3. Request: To divide one lot with a total area of 29,862 square feet into three lots in a Single - Family Residential (RS -8) zone (see Attachment 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 -8 zone. b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public works requirements. c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75, 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 shed from proposed Lot 2. c) Make the following revisions to the plat: (1) Add a north arrow. (2) Add bearings to all existing and proposed property lines. (3) If setbacks are to be included, add the following statement to the face of the plat: "Setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no right." (4) 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- 2006-78 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division." (5) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, and staffs approval block. Viking Properties, Inc. File No. 5-2006-0078 Page 3 of 10 d) Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor's requirements for recording, including all signatures in black ink. e) 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. f) 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. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance Introduction a. Setting: The subject property at 10222 — 244`" Street Southwest is located in the Single -Family Residential (RS -8) zone (Attachment 2). The surrounding properties to the north, west, and cast are also zoned RS -8, while the properties to the south are located outside of the City of Edmonds limits. All of the surrounding properties appear to be developed with single-family residences. b. Topography and Vegetation: The western half of the subject property slopes downwards to the west, while the eastern portion of the property slopes slightly downwards to the east. The western portion of the lot is sloped enough to be considered an Erosion Hazard Area. 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 northeastern portion of the existing lot, Lot 2 will be created on the southeastern portion of the lot, and Lot 3 will be created on the western portion of the lot. The existing house will be retained on proposed Lot 3. All three lots are proposed to be accessed directly off of 244' Street Southwest. A preliminary development plan is included as Attachment 3B. 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). Although there are a number of mature evergreen trees on the site, many of these trees are located within the buildable areas on proposed Lots 1 and 2. And, more importantly, the subject property is not located within the Single -Family Resource designation of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, there are no Comprehensive Plan policies nor any code regulations that require the retention of the existing trees, particularly since most of the trees are located within the buildable areas on the proposed new lots. The applicant is encouraged to retain as many trees as possible; however, this is not something that can be required with approval of this short plat. There are no other apparent environmental resources on this site. KI 4. Viking Properties, Inc. File No. S-2006-0078 Page 4 of 10 b. The proposal minimizes grading because the portion of the site that is to be developed (proposed Lots 1 and 2) is relatively level. The majority of the subject property's slope is located on proposed Lot 3, where the existing house is to be retained. 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. Lot and Street Layout 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 review of the project and the analysis presented in this section, staff agrees that a three lot short -plat is a reasonable use of the property. b. Lot sizes and dimensions: Lot Area: . Required Lot Area Proposed Gross sq. ft Proposed Nets , ft Lot 1 8,000 8,004 8,004 Lot 2 8,000 8,852 8,852 Lot 3 8,000 13,007 13,007 Lot Width: The required lot width in the R5-8 zone is 70 feet. The proposed lots meet this requirement. The preliminary plans show a slight bend in the property line between proposed Lots 2 and 3. The purpose of this bend appears to be in order to maintain the required 7.5 -Foot side setback from the existing garage on Lot 3 to the new property line. However, the existing garage is indicated on the plans as a portion of the house that is to be removed. If this portion of the house is removed prior to recording, the applicant may straighten the property line between Lots 2 and 3 as long as the new lots continue to meet the site development standards for the RS -8 zone. Setbacks and Lot Coverage a. In order to approve a subdivision, the proposal must meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance. Otherwise, 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 Setbacks (25 feet): From the northern and eastern property lines. Side Setbacks (7.5 feet): From the western and southern property lines. Lot 2: Street Setback (25 feet): From the eastern property line. Side Setbacks (7.5 feet); From the northern and southern property lines. Rear Setback (15 feet): From the western property line. Lot 3: Street Setback (25 feet): From the northern property line. Side Setbacks (7.5 feet): From the western and eastern property lines. Rear Setback (15 feet): From the southern property line. Existing Structures 1 Encroachments: The existing house is proposed to be retained on Lot 3. The subdivision map indicates a portion of the existing house that is to be removed; however, Viking Properties, Inc. File No. S-2006-0078 Page 5 of 10 this is not a requirement of the preliminary subdivision approval because this portion of the house meets the minimum required 7.5 -foot side setback from the proposed property. line, A shed is located on proposed Lot 2. Since an accessory structure cannot be located on a lot without a primary structure, the shed must be removed prior to final approval. b. Corner Lots: Lot 1 is considered a corner lot. C. Flag or Interior lot determination: None of the lots are considered flag lots. d. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: 1.) 35% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RS -8 zone. 2.) According to Snohomish County Assessor's records, the existing house and attached garage cover approximately 2,588 square feet, which will result in a 199% lot coverage on Lot 3. The existing shed located on Lot 2 must be removed prior to recording, and there are no existing structures located on Lot 1. Therefore, proposed Lots I and 2 will both have a zero percent lot coverage. Any future buildings or structures will be allowed to cover no more than 35% of each lot. 5. Dedications a. No street dedication is required, per City Engineer's Requirements (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. S. 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. BA. 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: Viking Properties, Inc. File No, S-2006-0078 Page 6 of 10 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. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: The proposal will retain an existing house and 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. C. Compliance with the Zoning Code 1. The proposed subdivision must comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code. See sections ILA.3 and ILAA of this document. D. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions 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 -2006-0063. Results of Critical Areas Review: During critical areas review of the subject property, it was found that the property contains a slope that is steep enough to be considered an Erosion Hazard Area as defined by ECDC 23.40. As a result, erosion control measures, such as silt fencing, may be required during construction on the site depending on the extent of the project and its proximity to the slope. G. Comments Eleven public comment letters were received during the review of this proposal and are included as Attachments 5 though 15. A discussion of the main points brought up in the comment letters follows. Appearance: The attached comment letters address concerns over the appearance of any future houses constructed on the proposed lots. The neighbors commented that new construction on the proposed lots should fit in with the neighborhood's character by designing individualized houses that utilize a Northwest style and that provide maximum privacy for the neighboring houses. Staff Response: The City cannot regulate the design and appearance of new homes located within single-family zones other than requiring all new houses to meet the applicable site development standards (i.e. setbacks, lot coverage, height) for the zone in which the new homes are located. Design review is required for all development except for permitted primary and secondary uses in Single -Family Residential (RS) zones and duplexes in Multi -Family (RM) zones. Since a single- family residence is a permitted primary use within the RS -8 zone, design review cannot be required. Therefore, the design review criteria in ECDC 20.10.070 cannot be applied to future houses built on the proposed lots. The applicant,however, is encouraged to construct homes that Viking Properties, Inc. Pile No, 5-2006-0078 Page 7 of 10 will fit in with the character of the neighborhood, including providing maximum privacy and utilizing a Northwest style of architecture. Drainalle: Most of the comment letters included concerns over potential drainage issues. Homeowners located to the west and downhill from the subject property stated that they have problems with drainage during heavy rains and are concerned that additional water runoff will be created if the existing trees are removed and if the new lots are developed. They were also concerned that drainage problems will cause the road to get icy in the winter. The neighbors commented that the sewer system needs to be redesigned and moved entirely off of the private road. Staff Response: Potential drainage issues are addressed by ECDC Chapter 18.30 and by the Engineering Division's requirements, which are included as Attachment 4. The applicant will be required to provide new storm sewer service to all of the proposed lots, construct a storm detention system sized to provide adequate capacity for all proposed single family dwellings and access improvements, and to connect to the public storm system. City code requires that all new impervious surfaces are connected to an on-site detention system. Since development of the site will cause a loss of existing pervious surfaces, the code will require the applicant to accommodate for the loss of natural drainage capabilities currently associated with the subject property. The methods used for drainage control will be further addressed by the Engineering Division during civil approvals for the short plat. Parking: The comment letters address concerns over parking along 240' Street Southwest. The neighbors stated that the existing homes along the private portion of 244"' Street Southwest have had an understanding over the years that on -street parking should be temporary and minimal. They addressed concerns that the applicant's plans seem to have little provision for parking on the proposed lots themselves. In addition, it was brought up that residents at the end of 244"` Street Southwest cannot drive to end of street when it snows due to the downward slope of the street, so they have parked in front of the subject property during snowy weather. Staff Response: ECDC 16.20.030 requires that a minimum of two on-site parking spaces are provided per house located within the RS -8 zone. There is no City code justification for requiring more than the two required on-site parking spaces per house. The Thompson's Addition owners would be able to enter into a private agreement or add to the existing agreement prohibiting parking along the private road; however, this is not a matter that the City can enforce. Construction Traffic; Many of the comment letters addressed concerns over traffic from construction -related equipment during development of the proposed lots. The neighbors feel that traffic during construction will impact parking and will cause damage to street. They commented that they would like the applicant to bear the costs of any necessary repairs associated with any damage to the street during construction. Staff Response: The City's code does not provide justification for requiring the applicant to repair damage to a private street during construction. Therefore, this is a matter that will have to be resolved privately. Private Road Agreement: One of the main concerns addressed by the comment letters is the Thompson's Addition owners' question as to whether the applicant has the right to add additional access points along the private road. The Thompson's Addition Road Maintenance Agreement is a part of the comment letter that is included as Attachment S. The neighbors feel that this maintenance agreement requires a majority vote for additional driveway connections to be made to the private road. They stated that if the short plat is approved, the new lots should be made parties to the existing Road Maintenance Agreement with an equal share in future costs (divided among 12 total properties). The neighbors stated that placement of utilities within the private road will require a majority approval of the Thompsion's Addition owners. Staff Response: Staff consulted with the City's attorney regarding the Road Maintenance Agreement. It is not the City's responsibility to determine how to interpret the agreement and to determine whether or not the applicant has the right to add additional access points along the private road. This is a question that would have to be settled privately between the applicant and the Thompson's Addition owners. Viking Properties, Inc. File No. 5-2006-0078 Page 8 of 10 Trees: Many of the comment letters stated that the site contains nine large -diameter "legacy" trees that are as much as 100 feet in height and provide bird and animal habitat, absorb stormwater, and help to absorb noise. The neighbors commented that the proposed lots should be conditioned to be landscaped in such a way as to conform with the existing landscaping on neighboring properties and to retain as many trees as possible. Staff Response: The subject property is not located within the Single -Family Resource designation of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, there are no Comprehensive flan policies nor any code regulations that require the retention of the existing trees. The applicant is encouraged to retain as many trees as possible; however, this is not something that can be required with approval of this short plat. Hearing: A few of the comment letters requested that a formal public hearing be held on the proposed subdivision before development proceeds. Staff Response: Per ECDC 20.75.065.E, applications for short subdivisions (subdivisions resulting in four or fewer lots) are to be reviewed by City staff. After staff issues a preliminary decision on a proposed short plat, the decision could then be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. See section III.B of this document for further information on appeals. Sidewalks: One comment letter stated that the street currently has no sidewalks and that subdivisions on nearby streets were observed to have involved sidewalk construction. This raised the question as to whether sidewalks will be required to be constructed on 244h Street Southwest as a part of the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: Subdivisions made on properties that front on public streets are required to make various street improvements, such as the construction of sidewalks and curbs and gutters. However, since the subject property fronts on the portion of 244h Street Southwest that is a private road, the City cannot require the construction of such street improvements. 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 Division for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.1 00.010.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 continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal Viking Properties, Inc. File No. S-2006-0078 Page 9 of 10 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. VI. APPENDICES Attachments: 1. Application 2. Vicinity / Zoning Map 3A. Subdivision Map 3B. Preliminary Development Plan 4. Engineering Requirements 5. Comment Letter from James O'Brien 6. Comment Letter from AI and Farah Hamedani 7. Comment Letter from Karen and Alan Gillespie 8. Comment Letter from Mitch and Sue Legel 9. Comment Letter from Karl and Susie Johnson 10. Comment Letter from Michael Bowerman 11. Comment Letter from Al and Louise Middleton 12. Comment Letter from Joy Smarr 13. Comment Letter from Arni and Marit Rockness Thomson 14. Comment Letter from Jill Gauthier 15. Comment Letter from Arnie Sugar and Lynn Scovill VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Engineering Department Jeffrey Treiber Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Planning Department 19400 — 33`d Avenue West, Suite #200 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Viking Properties, Inc. James O'Brien P.O. Box 1034 10209 — 244`h Street SW Lynnwood, WA 98046 Edmonds, WA 98020 A] and Farah Hamedani Kari and Susie Johnson 10304 — 244`x' Street SW 10319 — 244`h Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Karen and Alan Gillespie Michael Bowerman 10303 — 240 Street SW 817 NW 205`h Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Shoreline, WA 98177 Mitch and Sue Legel 10207 — 244`h Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Joy Smarr 10318-244 1h Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Jill Gauthier 805 NW 205`h Street Shoreline, WA 98177 Al and Louise Middleton 10205 — 244th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Arni and Marit Rockness Thomson 10217-244 1h Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Arnie Sugar and Lynn Scovill 10229— 244th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Viking Properties, Inc. File No. S-2006-0078 Page 10 of 10 city of edmonds land use application ARCHITECTURAL RESIGN REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HOME OCCUPATION GJT'" )Yt_ FORMAL SUBDIVISION [{aTlr i7 _ ( o� X SHORT SUBDIVISION 4"4L. I L6— LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT --- It PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT STREET VACATION REZONE SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION OTHER; PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 10222 244th Street S.W. Ri�l'S C,CAUN� T` PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Vikina Properties Inc. Short Plat PROPERTYOWNER Viking Properties, Inc. PHONE# 206-909-5940 ADDRESS P.O. Box 1034, Lynnwood WA 98036 E-MAILADDRESS Vik.ingpropertiesCaol.com FAX# 425-774-6315 TAX ACCOUNT # QQ5971QOQU800 SEC. -16 TWP, 27 RNG. 03 T_ DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OF, PROPOSED USE The instant proRosal 19—ED-r—the—z"d1vision of 29,862 SQ. FT. into three lot APPLICANT Viking Proertfes, Ina__ PHONE# 206-909-6940 ADDRESS P.O. Box -1.034, Lynnynod _ wn gRnnr E-MAILADDRESS vikinrpropert .ee2401.5,om FAx#l425-774-.6315 Ueffrey Treiber CONTACT PERSON/AGENT__Act,zoCPHONE#425-775-1591 ADDRESS 19400 33rd Ave. W. , Suite 'Inn Lynnwnod WA a 3.EL... E-MAILADDRESS JeffWlsae FAX #4,0 -672- 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 to file this appli ation on the bell if of the owner as listed below, SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE t= .f - G C 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 purposesof ' spection and osttng attendant t his application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER !/ t/f (/ / DATE �..� _' _ This application form was revised on 1127/00, To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771.0220, L:V.IBRARWLANNIN0\Forms & HandoutsTublic Handouts\Land Use Application.doc Attachment 1 04 Zoning Vicinity Map N r E"'10 , RS -20 RS -6 RM -3 ® BP CG2 = Rezones RS -12 RSW-12 RM -2.4 BN CW MU RS -10 '' ` RS -MP ® RM -1.5 BC 8 MP1 P PRD RS -8 CG ® MP2 OS 0 170 340 File 5-2006-78 r-��t Attachment 2 I ��s�s �✓ � E � (/! K roll !- I sd� Sa W 55 X F- S Lis En Oro CL g Z ZI •o;'a w fir. j,« � � r = u a a `J' g a ; o �� #gS ... � `� � � o w _ —� II I •ol I I a 1 II I �I I ;N 1 I I r 1 I 414 III I � I a I Y =�goa Lq VT NNE PA II 6 II 4?�� vl ry � msoma 5e L k I 9 f "Ia 1 Fea six v.e Jam; s ©7 I j+ $ av wail Y c I IgLZ o" -�.. �.. °+��" - I .<r,.� ..ss -s"--• '� ems-' P _ �� w.�cc' i _o g 1 I I 4 I I I I I Attachment 3, 7 F — 1f1 1 I I ¢I I 1 II al I I E w II al r 1 f -------------------- -e -------------- ........... ----- --- '--'-- - 1 - er �� I a�•'-_�l � �s��a L, \ a = -... �_----- ---- .�,...,.:, AY mail i `y O i W 411111 n a o AL , , " W o I I I g I /� � �\ g3 I I i e•r I I I Attachment 3 � ra �, � � n z ; ase �• � a N � E "3 4 S m § = a ��z mom. ` 58, A 8H i lug r..4 _ y w _ y Sd o CC k a as . z _Z� � �ase- Z 11 yx 1 a m � J Is i F i e � 1 -;• a , ff 1 d�W ae p� 1 11R wz No�tg�A sa i. ill 11 51 F — 1f1 1 I I ¢I I 1 II al I I E w II al r 1 f -------------------- -e -------------- ........... ----- --- '--'-- - 1 - er �� I a�•'-_�l � �s��a L, \ a = -... �_----- ---- .�,...,.:, AY mail i `y O i W 411111 n a o AL , , " W o I I I g I /� � �\ g3 I I i e•r I I I Attachment 3 CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS (in OVWSD) Name: VIKING PROPERTIES File No.: S -2006 -0078 - Reviewed by _ .fes-.- /4'3/•D6 _Vicinity: 10222244 TO ST SW t n ineerm U1vision nate Req'd prior Req'dBond Complete to w/bldg. posted recordina Permit 'l. Rights-of-way for public streets: Private street NIA 2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other utilities __. _._.._ _... _-. ___. ..... ---.-.-.-._.. Provide all easements as needed. ----- -....................................._-.-..--.-.-.-.-.-.-...-..-...-.-.-----------.-.-.._--__.-_-.-.._ X ......_-_. --.-_._..-.._-.---.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-------..-.-...---.--.-.-_....-.-....-.-.-.--..-.-.-.-.-..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-._..-.-.-.-.-.-....-.-....-.-.-.-.-.-...-....-..-_.------------ All lots shall..,all.access .off private access raad. _. _......_ _ _ -X............ 3. Street improvements ACP with curb and utter Private road- no frontage improvements can be required NIA d. Street turnaround: .... .... ... None required ....................... X 5. Sidewalks and/or walkways:. Private road- No sidewalk improvements can be required. N/A 6. Street lights: NIA 7. Planting strip: ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... N/A - ---- ----._............__.....-..... ... ... -................. ..... .................. _........... ............ ....... ....... - - -- - 8. Water system improvements (pipelines, fire hydrants, pump stations, etc Developer must enter into an Extension agreement with Olympic X View Water and Sewer District_ Install a 4" storz adapter on all hydrants within the private road. --- X _... _. _..-.. _...._..__.._... _ ....... ............ .............. .- - ... _......... ---- -- --------------- Provide new water service_ to each lot. X - --s - - ste- - - - ---------- ......................._.............. Connect toublic waterM. - - - - -- ......_..P....---- - - ------ -Y -- - --- -- - -----...-_... -- --------- -- - -- - ...................._.......--................................._..................--...... X. ............__........ _........................................................................................ X. ------------------ . ------- .-.-.-..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.. ,........................... .................... ...... http;lledmondspmtweblpermittraxiPermitTraxMainlAttachment"ivelPERMITIPMT_5501016272006172129170.doc form revised; I1 Attachment 4 hup:lledmondspmtweblpermittraxiPermitTraxMainlAttachmentsiLive1PERMITIPMT_5501016272006172129170.doc form revised: 11/15/05 Req'd prior Req'd Bond Complete to wlbldg. posted Permit 9. Sanitary sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump -recording stations, etc. Developer must enter into an Extension agreement with Olympic View Water and Sewer District. ............. ........ ..... _..... ...... ... ---.----..............--..... _.................................................................. m ......------.-.-.-.-.-.- Provide new sewer service to each lot - -Connect to public sew er.system............................ .........._.. ._._......__... _ X X 10. Storm sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump stations, etc). .. _._ -.. Provide new storm sewer service to all proposed lots, including X front lot. Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate X capacity for all proposed single family dwellings and access ............improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30....................................... .. .. . ..............X -..-.-.-.. . .-.-.-.-.-.-....-..-..._.-... __......_.__.-.-.. Connect to Public Storms stem _.. -. __ .. _Y.. ._.._.�...-.._.-.-.--.-_.......-_.--._..................................................... ..... ...................... ...... ...... ... _----------- ................ ...... .............. ................................................. .................... ...................... 11. On-site drainage(plan per Ord. 3013 Connect all new impervious surfaces to detention system_ ..._--............--.........--........--...............................--..........--........_......................_............................--.- X X -- 12. Underground wiring (per Ord. 1387: -"-- --Required for all. new services ......--....................................--.---.----__._......................_-._......._......._.........X-......_._._......._............_._... X................. -... .............................. ......... ........... _..... ... -........ ..... ........ 13. Excavation and grading (per IBC, appendix j (2003 edition a grading.P.lan as part of engineered site..plan......-... X _Submit .................-.-....-....-..-....-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-_.._X......--.-.-.-.-.....-......-.-...-... Grading for foundations to be included with building permit only --- -" X .-.-.....-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-_...--.-. ........................................_... 14. Signage(per City Enineer Provide house address s es-as required by bldg division X 15. Survey monumentation(per Ord., Section 12.10.120 NIA X 16. As-built drawings(per City Engineer): for all utility construction._..._...... - X. _-....-..X............_...-.-._... .. ............... -.............................. 17. Other requirements: a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information _--- X X - .---.-----.-.-.---- 6-- Le- al documents for each lot -.-.-----.-..—X.-.-.-.-.. - --------- . ._.......... ....... _.... ... ........................................... -g_-.-_...-.._...._._ .....-...-._._.-.__-...____—--- —__--.-._--------------.-.-.-.-.------------------------ c) Field stake lot co_-.__. _--.--.-_ -_-__-------------- --------- -..-___-.-.-.m .__------------ _----- ---------- __--------------------------------- ------------- .-..-......._........-....-.-.-.-.-.--.----..-.-.----.---.--. d) Field stake utility stubs at property lines. ................ ..... _.......................... _ ...................--................................. _-___................_- o. Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster ._-.-_.-._-.-.-.-.-.X_.-.-.-____-.__ ._.__.-.-._..._—X_.-__................_._..M -------- -._-.-. M..w .„,...— _.-.--._--.-.-.---.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.............. _...__........__.__.__- _............................... _-. _.-.-.-_-.-_.--.-- _-.-.-.-.-.- t} MaEntenance agreements X hup:lledmondspmtweblpermittraxiPermitTraxMainlAttachmentsiLive1PERMITIPMT_5501016272006172129170.doc form revised: 11/15/05 '0' .3/- o6 ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded. Authorized for recording by: Date: http://edmondspmtweb1pennittraxIPermitTraxMainlAttachments/LivelPERMITIPMT_5501016272006172129170.doc. form revised: 11/15/05 James M. 10209244 1h O'Brien Street, SW Edmonds, WA 98020-5756 September 11, 2006 Ms Gina Coccia, Planner City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division 121 5t�' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Ms. Coccia, Thank you for sending me a copy of the "Highland Park Estates„ "Thompsons Addition " and a sheet showing the Preliminary Development Plan for Viking Properties. This represents an application for the subdivision of one lot into three lots of the property at 10222 244' St. SW Edmonds. My wife and I have recently moved here from a suburb of Chicago and are not familiar with the subdivision process. Hence, we have a number of questions. The Notice of Development Application states "The property is zoned Single Family Residential_" How does that allow for two more houses in an area "zoned for single family residential"? As indicated on the documents, 24e St SW, west of 100 Ave, is a Private Road or Private Way. This particular property(10222) has a circular driveway providing two access/egress points. Does the City have authority to grant additional access/egress points or is that reserved to the owners of the road? As originally developed, all of the existing homes have been sited so no person in one home is looking into the bedroom of another home, and further all of the homes are of individualized appearance. From the proposal, it would appear that the proposed homes are "cookie cutters" (one set of plans for both houses). Does Edmonds have an appearance ordinance? It is my understanding that the homeowners to the west and downhill from this property have problems with water during heavy rains. The present wooded property at 10222 appears to absorb at least its fair share. Is something going to -be done to mitigate this additional; water runoff with onsite water retention? There are two existing agreements concerning "maintenance" and "Road Maintenance". They do not provide for any additions as all of the lots are occupied. How do these affect the proposed subdivision? It appears that the Preliminary plan request may not be granted. How do we follow up on our concerns? If some preliminary approval is granted, what is the appeal process? Sincerely, Al James M. O'Brien PH: 206-542-7804 FAX: 206-546 6095 EMAIL.: mike@jmobrien.net Attachment 5 THOMPSON MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT Whereas the present owners of Lots 1 through 8 shown on plat of Thompson's Addition., as recorded in Volume 22 of Plats_, page 102, records of Snohomish County, Washington, and present owners of Lots 1 and 2 of short plat SP -129 (4-84), recorded under Snohomish County recording No. 8410240198: Lot 1 of T1hh n' dition W Robert W. Campb ll Lot 2 of Thompson's Addition 4c arencd W. _Cannon Lot 3 Q , Mpson's Addition St "n Gwinn Lot 4_ o . Thompson's Addition W i� Lot ,r 4em uEwspi dition Lot -6 of Thom son's Addition Lot 7 of Thompson's Addition SIR X=p William J. AsX'B"Addition Lot 8 of Thomps Fred&rick Thompso Lot 1 of Short Flat SP -129 (4-841 "Fiola H. Canndn —Katharine S. G*inn s Lo of Short Plat SP -129 (4-84) Aa -vilhotla JU Carroll = - i ROAD MAINTENANV AGREEMENT This Road Maintenance Agreement is made among the present owners of Lots 1 through 8 as shown on the plat of Thompson's Addition, as recorded in Volume 22 of Plats, page 102, records of Snohomish County, Washington, also being joint -owners -of Tract "A" of Thompson's Addition, and Frederick and Betty Jl Thompson, owners of the following described parcel: All that portion of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of the goutheast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M. EXCEPT that portion platted as Thompson's Addition as recorded in volume 22 of Plats, page 102, records of Snohomish County{ Washington Also EXCEPT that portion deeded as county road known as 104th Avenue West - Which parcel shares an easement for ingress, egress across Tract "A" and will be divided into two parcels by means of a Short Plata These parcels to be known as Lot 9 and Lot 104 The owners described above will be hereafter referred to as "the PARTIES". Being desirous of assuring the maintenance and improvement of said Tract "A" to their mutual benefit, the. PARTIES described above DECLARE for themselves, their purchasers., heirs and assigns,_ a mutual, reciprocal agreement for the purpose of maintenance, landscaping, repairs, and improvements to Tract "A", which agree- ment will run with the _land and inure to the benefits of each lot and, further, each party to this agreement covenants and agrees for their heirs, assigns and purchasers the following conditions and restrictions: 1. The PARTIES, their hears, assigns and purchasers shall maintain and improve Tract "A". 20 The COST of all maintenance, improvements or replace- ments shall be borne by the PARTIES, their heirs, assigns and purchasers upon the following terms: (a) One tenth of the cost will -be borne equally by each owner of Lots 1 through 84 (b) One tenth of the cost will be borne equally by each owner of Lots 9 and 10 of Short Plat described above. 3. Any of the ten (10) owner(s) may propose any improvement, maintenance, or replacement of any paved portion or any utility structure or any other improvement and, upon a vote of the majority of the ten (10) owners, a majority being six (6) or more, such improvement, maintenance or replacement -shall be deemed approved by all ten (10) lot owners. Page l of 3 4. Within sixty (601. days of invoice for any such improve- ment, maintenance or replacement, each lot owner shall pay his/her share of any such cost. Any share remaining unpaid more than sixty (60) days from the date of such invoice shall become a lien upon thelot of the non-paying owner- together with any costs of attorney fees'incurred inperfecting same or enforcement thereof, S. Any improvement, maintenance -or replacement ordered by any court, governmental agency or subdivision thereoff shall be treated as if approved'by the majority of the lot owners and shall be paid as specified in Paragraphs -2a and b above. 6. Each lot owner shall maintain the landscaping, paved portion, and any utility structure(s) adjacent to his/her lot in a clean and orderly fashion and shall bear the cost of watering or fertilizing.,sh landscaping, , 4 N A'`T , Lot 1 y - Robert W.,C .pbell Kerry V,'Campbell_ Lot Lot Lot Lot Viola H. Cannon Lot 6 Lot 7 Carolyn J. am jo Lot 8 Frederick Thomf5son Lot 9 of Short Plat Frederick Thompson Lot 10 of Short Plat J 'Frederick Thompson �" Page 2 of 3 1 Katherine D. Roben n can M. Aste 'Bett_t J41Thompsl4n Betty F U Thomp n It g%" Min y�L _JU �IMXXWMM. ._. STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)ss" On this day personally appeared before -me ROBERT toe CAMPBELL & KERRY V. CAMPBELL,, husband & wife,. CLARENCE.W. CANNON & VIOLA H. CANNON, husband & wife, -WILLIAM Ja.SALZMANN & SHIRLEY M. SALZMANNr husband & ,rife, KENNETH J. ROBEN & KATHERINE D. ROBEN, husband & wife, WILLIAM J. ASTEL & JEAN M. ASTEL, husband & wife, FREDERICK THOMPSON_1 BETTY.J. THOMPSON, husband & wife, to me known to be the individuals -described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and -acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 01v*. day of��,A 1984. NOTARY PUBLIC In and for e State of Washington, residing at &*"j, -W3 STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SN6Homi SH j s s o On this day personally appeared before me -STEPHEN M. GWINN & KATHARINE S. GWINNr husband & wife, to me known to be the individuals `described in and who e.Xecuted the within and foregoing instrument ,and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed"'for the -uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and off 1984. STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)ss' �al seal this 4A day of No ARY PU7 IC in and for the Sta a of Washington, residing at On this day personally appeared before me-CAROLYN J. SOUSLIN, to rite known to be the individual, described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary -act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this .1984. day Of ::� s• d� NOTARY PUBLIC 1n and for t e State -of Washingtonr residing Page 3 of 3 at �`� RECEIVED SEP 1 6 2006 DEVELQPMENT SERVICES September 18, 2006 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5t" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention Jennifer Machuga (Witzgall), Planner RE: Notice of Development Application #S-0.6-78 Dear Mrs. Witzgall: I reside on the property adjacent to the proposed subdivision and I am concerned that I am going to be severely impacted by the development plans. There are several important questions and issues that need to be addressed concerning the development at 10222 244`x' St., S.W., Edmonds, Washington. The issues and questions have been clearly defined in correspondence to you, that is now a part of the public record, from Karen and Alan Gillespie and several other persons in our neighborhood. The list of issues and concerns were developed at a well -attended neighborhood meeting that I was unable to attend. My wife and I concur with all the concerns and comments expressed in the above correspondence from the Gillespies regarding storm drainage impacts, parking issues, damage to our private street, the "legacy" trees and the animal and bird habitat they provide; the need for Viking Properties to commit to the private road maintenance agreement; and last but not least, architectural plans should be in conformance with our existing homes, traditional Northwest style architecture. The existing homes were carefully planned to provide maximum privacy for each of the owners. All the homes are uniquely situated such that none of the homes face any of the others. We are desirous of seeing this privacy feature maintained in the proposed two new homes. Sincerely, Al and Farah Hamedani 10304 244`x' Street S.W. Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attachment 6 10303 244th St, S.W. Edmonds WA 98020 11 Sept 2006 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5t' Ave. North Edmonds WA 98020 Attn: Jen Machuga Re: Notice of Development Application #S-06-78 Dear Ms Machuga: Notice of proposed subdivision of the property at 10222 244th St., SW, Edmonds, has been posted on the property. There are several important questions and issues that need to be addressed concerning this development, and we are writing to request both information and a formal public hearing on them before the development proceeds. The property is zoned single family residential. As we understand it from the posted plans, Viking Properties Inc. intends to subdivide the existing lot, remodeling an existing structure and adding two new ones. The house plans are not posted, only the footprints, but apparently the existing structure will have the roof removed and an extra story added. From the crowding of the two new structures on the existing lot, it seems likely that they will be two- story also. The existing subdivision is built around a private road, 244th St SW. The original houses were organized well to maximize privacy, are not alike, and are all consistently themed (NW style). The posted plans give no indication of building style and consistency with the neighborhood, as required in the Edmonds Municipal Code. Chief concerns that warrant a hearing are, in no particular order: 1) Storm drainage. The existing lot has large expanses of soil and trees, which absorb rain in the permeable soil. Nine trees have DBH diameters of 22-36 inches. Viking proposes to cut down the trees and replace the permeable soil with impermeable structures and concrete. Some kind of underground tank is planned to store water for slow and later release. The steep street funnels extra runoff into the two houses at the bottom of the hill. We need reassurance that Viking's plan will not augment runoff, as seems likely, and will not erode the existing road. Should Viking's plan fail, does the city expect the existing residents along this private road to pick up the costs, subsidizing Viking's profits? 2) Parking. For 40 years, the existing subdivision has had an understanding that on -street parking be temporary and minimal. The proposed addition of two new houses will likely add new cars (4 or more) and may add other vehicles such as motor homes and boats as Attachment 7 well, as a look at 244th street (205th in King Co) east of 100th (8th in King Co) will show. Already, one resident there parks his overflow cars and trucks on 244th west of 100"', and on 100th itself just north of 244"', but this is not on the private street. We and the other exiting residents are concerned that Viking's plans for subdivision seem to have little provision for parking on the property itself. In addition to the potential violation of the neighborhood's conventions and established habits, leading to reduction in quality of life there, there is a practical consequence too: The private street is not plowed by the city. It is commonly impossible for most vehicles to drive up the steep lower part of the street for extended periods of time — many days — during and following snowfall. For four decades, the previous owners of the property proposed for "development" by Viking allowed residents of the lower street to leave cars on the street by their lawn and stand of trees, but this would be exactly in front of the two new houses planned by Viking. In permitting Viking to proceed, what provision does the City of Edmonds have in mind for solving this problem? 3) Damage to street. Heavy construction equipment will be driving and parking on 244th St for months during proposed construction, with two consequences: 1) parking will be temporarily impacted, possibly including during and after winter storms as discussed above, and 2) damage to the asphalt may well result. Is it the intent of the City of Edmonds that the existing residents pay for this damage, or is there some provision to require Viking to restore the street to its former condition? 4) Esthetics. The nine large -diameter "legacy" trees on the site and referred to above (#1) are much as 100 ft in height. Edmonds has tried to preserve trees, and even the Seattle Times this week has expressed concern that green areas have been vastly reduced in the years since our neighborhood was established. Cutting these trees decreases animal/bird habitat and increases ambient noise, since trees absorb sound effectively. Cutting will also increase windiness in the neighborhood during storms. 5) Sidewalks. The neighborhood now has none. However, subdivisions on nearby streets have involved their construction_ What is the situation for this development? Sincerely Karen and Alan Gillespie September 15, 2006 Jennifer Machuga, Planner City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Planning Division 121 5«' Avenue North Edmonds, WA. 98020 Re: Notice of Development Application, File # S-06-78 Dear Jennifer; This comments letter is in response to a "Notice of Development Application" File # S- 06-78, applicant Viking Properties, Inc. More specifically, an application to subdivide one lot zoned Single Family Residential (RS -8) into three lots located at 10222 244th St. S.W., Edmonds, WA. This property is one of the original eight (8) lots served by a Private Road (Tract A) created by the subdivision of "Thompson's Addition" recorded in volume 22 of plats, page 102, records of Snohomish County. Property owners from Thompson's Addition and surrounding neighbors recently held a meeting to discuss the issues and impacts this development will have on our neighborhood. Some, if not most, of the issues are collectively stated and described below. The southern boundary line of Thompson's Addition is the Snohomish 1 King County line and the only way to access our neighborhood is through a King County (City of Shoreline) public roadway known as N.W. 205th Street. As most of us are aware, N.W. 205th Street and 244th Street S.W. are commonly known as the "County line". The only access to Thompson's Addition is along N.W. 205t`' Street and upon entering Thompson's Addition, N.W. 205th Street becomes 244th Street S.W, a Private Road, also known as Tract A. Since lot owners of Thompson's Addition were responsible for the maintenance of the "Private Road" the developer Mr. Fred Thompson and property owners' of Thompson's Addition, established a Road Maintenance Agreement and is of public record under Snohomish County recording number 8404020218. This agreement was established for the mutual benefit of each lot owner for the purposes of maintenance, landscaping, repairs and improvement. One of the conditions in the agreement requires a majority vote of the lot owners. This is where our concerns begin regarding the above referenced "Notice of Development Action". In consideration of the City's review process and as a condition of plat approval, the City should require the developer / applicant Viking Properties to comply with the issues discussed herein and obtain majority approval from lot owners of Thompson's Addition to either alter, change, connect or impact in any way, the "Private Road" (Tract A). We feel the City of Edmond's does not have the sole authority to approve any development without the consent and majority approval of owners within Thompson's Addition. °f3 Attachment 8 New properties and established lots within Thompson's Addition should be made parties to the existing Road Maintenance Agreement, with equal share in future costs (divided among 12 total new parcels) if the short plat is approved. The additional lots will generate more traffic which the private road is not designed for_ Sight distance is a safety issue for the corner lot and without proper placement of any improvements will jeopardize the safety of property owners, particularly children in our neighborhood. We insist any improvements planned for the corner lot are setback more than the current zoning requires and that no fences are allowed along the Private Road or within 20 feet thereof. Also, strategically planned and placed speed bumps are also desired. Due to the width of the existing Private Road and increased traffic, no lot owner should be allowed to park vehicles of any type within Tract A, the Private Road. This includes cars, boats, trailers, recreation vehicles. This requirement ensures the safety of all lot owners and sustains the desired aesthetics we currently enjoy. Onsite parking for the proposed short plat appears to be inadequate and will result in on -street parking. Construction traffic will have an adverse impact on the private roadway, which was not designed for heavy truck traffic. Cost for any repairs and maintenance damaged by the associated development must be borne by the developer 1 applicant Viking Properties, Inc. According to the applicant's preliminary development plan, the proposed sanitary sewer service connection (side sewer) is shown parallel to the proposed north line of lot 3 and within the Private Road (Tract A). Without majority approval from lot owners of Thompson's Addition", this is unacceptable, poorly designed, and purely for the benefit of the developer 1 applicant. The sewer system needs to be redesigned and moved entirely off the Private Road. An option the developer f applicant would have is to create a sewer easement under, over, through and across the north portion of proposed lot 3 to accommodate the sewer design. The preliminary development plan shows a proposed stormwater detention vault discharging to the street. This may adversely impact downhill properties, as there is currently no storm drainage system along this block of 244th St SW. The "storm drain" shown on the plans is a homeowner -constructed, black plastic perforated pipe and yard drain at or barely below grade which provides little or no function and "does not discharge to the street". Site stormwater should be tight -lined to the nearest City storm drain, or infiltrated on the property (away from the roadway). Although City code generally does not allow infiltration due to low permeability soils under most of Edmonds, this area is underlain by permeable sands that may allow infiltration. According to the preliminary development plan, why does the common property line for lots 2 and 3 have a jog at the location where the existing house is shown as "to be removed"? In reference to the Road Maintenance Agreement, proposed driveway connections require majority approval from lot owners of Thompson's Addition. Where is access planned for lot 3? 2 of 3 All proposed lots must be conditioned for approval to be properly landscaped in conformity with abutting properties, to sustain current aesthetics, and to establish a buffer from the street. In conclusion, the applicant's preliminary development plan will be substantially out of character with the existing houses, which were platted with professional architecture and landscape design in mind. The existing homes were designed in the 1960 — 1970 era with a northwest contemporary style, and are uniquely situated on the lots (mostly at different angles to each other) to create private settings. Placement of two identical houses perpendicular to the street as shown on the applicant / developer's preliminary development plan will permanently destroy and alter the character of the neighborhood. A poorly planned improvement, through external obsolescence, will reduce property values and aesthetics of this unique neighborhood. Edmonds Municipal Code section 20.10.070 states: "The building shall be designed to ._.avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area___ The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment:.. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists... Landscape treatment should be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements ...Landscape treatment should be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. " With development codes as a guide, the City of Edmonds is responsible to ensure, with knowledge and foresight, the proper planning of improvements considering the specific issues of each development throughout the review and approval process. Without the majority vote and approval from lot owners of "Thompson's Addition", and the lack of mitigating our concerns stated above, we strongly encourage the City of Edmonds to deny approval of the "Notice of Development Application" File # S-06-78. It is our intent to appeal "Notice of Development Application" File # S-06-78 if our concerns and issues discussed herein are not satisfied. Sincerely, gitc!'eeL7egel 10207 240 Street SM Edmonds, WA. 98020 206-546-4867 3 of 3 Sue Legel Page 1 of 1 Machuga, Jen From: SusieHossJohnson@aol.com Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 4:25 PM To: Machuga, Jen Cc: Karl. Joh nson@cexp_corn Subject: Re_ Viking Development concerns Jennifer Machuga, Planner City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Planning Division 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA. 98020 Dear Jennifer: Please accept this letter acknowledging complete support and agreement with the document submitted to your office by Mitch . and Sue Lege) concerning a "Notice of Development Application" File # S-06-78, applicant Viking Properties, Inc. As the owners of one of the Legel's referenced "downhill properties" 10319 244th St. SW, we have particular and significant concerns with respect to the proposed drainage plan. This excerpt from the Legel's letter represent's this concern to the impact of our property, "The preliminary development plan shows a proposed stormwater detention vault discharging to the street. This may adversely impact downhill properties, as there is currently no storm drainage system along this block of 244th St SW. The "storm drain" shown on the plans is a homeowner -constructed, black plastic perforated pipe and yard drain at or barely below grade which provides little or no function and "does not discharge to the street". Site stormwater should be tight -lined to the nearest City storm drain, or infiltrated on the property (away from the roadway). Although City code generally does not allow infiltration due to low permeability soils under most of Edmonds, this area is underlain by permeable sands that may allow infiltration." Furthermore, the removal of existing growth and landscape from the proposed site reduces the level of natural absorption and will only increase the downhill runoff directly into our property. Appropriate plans are not in place to address this drainage issue and neither our street nor our property is designed to accommodate increased drainage demand. "With development codes as a guide, the City of Edmonds is responsible to ensure, with knowledge and foresight, the proper planning of improvements considering the specific issues of each development throughout the review and approval process. Without the majority vote and approval from lot owners of "Thompson's Addition", and the lack of mitigating our concerns stated above, we strongly encourage the City of Edmonds to deny approval of the "Notice of Development Application" File # S-06-78. It is our intent to appeal "Notice of Development Application" File # S-06-78 if our concerns and issues discussed herein are not satisfied." Sincerely, Karl and Susie Johnson 10319 244th Street S.W Edmonds, WA. 98020 206-542-6626 Attachment 9 9/18/2006 To City of Edmonds Development Services Department RECEIVED 121 5�h Ave_ North Edmonds WA 98020 SEP 1 8 2005 From: Michael E. Bowerman 817 NW 205' Street DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Shoreline WA 98177 (206) 542.5160 Subject: Planned Property Updates at 10222 24,e St. SW, Edmonds Reference: Notice of Development Application File # S-06-78 This letter is written to request and strongly suggest a public hearing with regards to the planned property development described in the reference Notice of Development Application. As a neighbor to the property 1 have a few concerns that 1 believe need to be publicly discussed prior to proceeding with the planned buildings, namely: 1) What are the details associated with the planned runoff storage tank and how will it ensure no greater runoff than currently exists? Excessive run-off especially in the winter when freezing is probable will potentially make the road to the homes down the hill unusable due to ice. 2) What are the plans for the two new homes? Highland Estates is a unique development in that all its homes are of varied designs and typically constructed by different builders. Two identical homes in close proximity to the development would look out of place and potentially devalue the current homes. 3) The neighborhood has preserved a significant greenbelt despite the new homes that have been constructed during the past 10 years. Are the planned new homes going to also preserve any of the numerous large trees that currently exist on the property? 4) What is the planned parking associated with the new homes? Highland Estates specifically has covenants to prevent storage of RVs, boats, etc in front of the homes. Although the planned homes are not in Highland Estates, their proximity needs to at least assure adequate parking for the planned home size. Your attention to this request and prompt action in scheduling a public hearing is appreciated. Sincerely, Michael E. Bowerman Attachment 10 16� _-7 © 0 6 To City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 a Ave. North Edmonds WA 98020 From: Al & Louise Middleton 10206 244" St. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 (206)542-8185 Subject: Planned Properly Updates at 10222 240 St_ SW, Edmonds Reference: Notice of Development Application File # S4)6-78 tai This letter is written to request and strongly suggest a public hearing with regards to the planned property development described in the reference Notice of Development Application. As a neighbor to the property i have a few concerns that I believe need to be publicly discussed prior to proceeding with the planned buildings, namely_ 1) What are the details associated with the planned runoff storage tank and how will it ensure no greater runoff than currently exists? Excessive run-off,€€y in the winter when freezing is a pr+obablewwill potentially make the road to the homes down the hill unusable due to ice_ 2) What are the plans for the two new homes? Highland Estates is a unique development in that all its homes are of varied designs and typically constructed by diikent builders. Two identical homes in close proximity to the development would look out of place and potentially devalue the current homes. 3) The neighborhood has preserved a significant greenbelt despite the new homes that have been . constructed during the past 10 years_ Are the planned new homes going to also preserve any of the numerous large trees that currently exist on the property? 4) What is the planned parking associated with the new homes? Highland Estates specifically has covenants to prevent storage of RVs, boats, etc in front of the homes. Although the planned homes are not in Highland Estates, their proximity needs to at least assure adequate parking for the planned home size. Your attention to. this request and prompt action in scheduling a public hearing is appreciated_ Sincerely, Attachment 11 Joy Smarr 10378 244th St SW Edmonds, Washington 98020 206-533-0533 joysmarr@verizon.net September 18, 2006 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Avenge North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn. Jennifer Machuga (Witzgali), Planner RE: Notice of Development Application #5-06-78 Dear Mrs. Witzgall: I am writing to address some concerns regarding the "Notice of Development" at 10222 244th St SW, Edmonds. I attended a meeting of shared concern and issues that we in the neighborhood agreed upon over a week ago. I understand that as public record, Karen and Alan Gillespie, Mitch and Sue Lege!, James M. O'Brien, Marit and Ami Thomson have clearly defined these issues. 1 live at the bottom of the hill from where 'said' development is to take place_ Our residence will be directly affected due to many factors_ First and foremost is the proposed stormwater detention vault discharging to the street We have not had a "storm drain" per se, it was one Mr. Thompson put in. From my past experience, we have had no worries as long as the Thompson's maintained it. He was a proactive person. I am very coneemed with the removal of trees, changes in the land as it is and the changes to the layout of the existing home that I may be affected by flooding basements as an effect of the development. I agree with the parking issues expressed above, 'charm' of our existing homes to be kept inconformity with existing neighborhood and importantly the animal and bird habitat we hold close to in this community_ Lastly, I would like to see that Viking Properties commit to the private road maintenance agreement Our road is private and is maintained by all of us. I would like to see our road not be detoriated to the point of cost to each of us due to the development i would like to see our road continue to stay safe for our children. Sincerely, Joy A. Smarr Attachment 12 Arni and Marit Rockness Thomson 10217 244' Street S.W. Edmonds, Washington 98020 206 546 5222 acccrabaktCaearthlink.net September 18, 2006 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 1215 th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention Jennifer Machuga (Witzgall), Planner W itzgallAci. edmonds. wa.us RE: Notice of Development Application #S-06-78 Dear Mrs..Witzgall: RECEIVED SEP 19 2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES There are several important questions and issues that need to be addressed concerning the development at 10222 244`x' St., S.W., Edmonds, Washington. The issues and questions have been clearly defined in correspondence to you, that is now a part of the public record, from Karen and Alan Gillespie, Mitch and Sue Legel and James M. O'Brien. The list of issues and concerns were developed at a well -attended meeting of the neighbors that my wife and I participated in a week ago. My wife and I concur with all the concerns and comments expressed in the above correspondence about storm drainage impacts, parking issues, damage to our private street, the "legacy" trees and the animal and bird habitat they provide; the need for Viking Properties to commit to the private road maintenance agreement; and last but not least, architectural plans should be in conformance with our existing homes, traditional Northwest style architecture. The existing homes were carefully planned to provide maximum privacy for each of the owners_ All the homes are uniquely situated such that none of the homes face any of the others_ We are desirous of seeing this privacy feature maintained in the proposed two new homes. Sincer ly, j Arai Thomson .. Marit Rockness Thomson Attachment 13 September 17, 2006 Jennifer Machuga, Planner City of Edmonds - Development Services Department, Planning Division 121 5�h Avenue North SEP 2'0 2 Edmonds, WA. 98020 �fl� WIAfft DEpr Dear Ms. Machuga: Of King County, we just went through Brightwater interactions with the county. My concern here as with my concern then, is the noise and traffic. Being home during the day and working overnight, my sleep is crucial to my profession. I am in the healthcare profession and I do not want for my sleep to be disrupted. Being the distance that I am, I am certain that the noise of the construction will not be an issue. The noise of the traffic is another matter. What I believe to be also be an issue is that the construction will not be suitable for the neighborhood. Each house in this neighborhood is unique. Three like structures like what is built on 8th Avenue is just boring and shows lack of ambition in the mind of those who propose such. Also the trees to be removed is just wrong. Then if one looks at the crowded look to three houses being built on what is for us one piece of property, well ... you somehow destroy the appeal to our homes. What is being proposed just does not fit with what is already here. The idea of doing to -this. neighborhood what has been done on a Avenue is just invasion of something less when what we have is more. I believe that when we bought our home, the builder considered the rest of the neighborhood with what was done here. My hope is that the City of Edmonds will give care to the concerns of this neighborhood. We put up with much with people needing directions when available maps indicate this is a street that accesses through and King County wanting access to our properties for Brightwater. The drilling in front of my home made me quite nervous. Sincerely M1 - Ms. 3'ill Gauthier 805 NW 205th St Shoreline WA 98177-2162 Attachment 14 ARNIE SUGAR / LYNN SCOVILL 10229 244+h Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 September 17, 2006 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 1215"' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Jennifer Machuga, Planner Re: Notice of Development Application #5-06-78 10222 240 Street SW Edmonds, WA Dear Ms. Machuga, (206) 542-6585 asua@veeizon.net SEP 2 0 zoos PLANNING DEPT Please accept this comment letter in response to the Notice of Development Application #5-06-78 dated August 31, 2006, for the property at 10222 244t` Street SW Edmonds, WA. Following are our cornments to the application: Private roadway and maintenance agreement: • Approval for improvements. The existing roadway adjoining the proposed short plat parcel is a private road (Tract A), subject to a road maintenance agreement, Snohomish County recording No. #8404020218. If the short plat is approved, new properties must be made parties to the existing Road Maintenance Agreement, with equal share in future costs (divided among 12 total new parcels). Portions of new paving for the proposed driveways on Tract A will require a majority approval of existing parties to the Road Maintenance Agreement, which states "cost of all maintenance, improvements, or replacements shall be borne by the parties... any of the... owners may propose an improvement, maintenance or replacement of any paved portion or any utility structure or any other improvement, and upon a vote of the majority... such improvement, maintenance or replacement shall be deemed approved... " • Damage to roadway. Construction traffic will have an adverse impact on the private roadway, which was not designed for heavy truck traffic. Cost for repairs and maintenance resulting from the development should be borne by the developer. Installation of utilities, if improperly constructed (which is not uncommon for speculative residential development), will cause long term future degradation of the roadway, the impacts of which will be borne by the parties to the Road Maintenance Agreement long after the developer is gone and the new properties are sold; Potential mitigation for these issues may be accomplished by 1) providing site access and utilities along the. southern portion ofthe'property (along the City of Seattle and Puget Sound Power Easement), which would still require approval of the maintenance agreement parties, 2) a one - Attachment 15 September 17, 2006 Page 2 time levy or escrow for roadway repairs and maintenance, or 3) a condition to repave the roadway- Parking/driveways. • Onsite parking as proposed is inadequate and will result in excessive on -street parking. For 40 years, the existing subdivision has had an understanding that on -street parking be temporary and minimal. • Placement of three new driveways replacing a loop drive will pose a safety hazard, as the proposed driveways appear 16 feet wide, requiring future occupants of all three proposed houses to back onto the street on an inside corner with likely reduced sight distances, due to the proposed development as shown and likely future landscaping or fencing. Utilities. The proposed sanitary sewer service connection (side sewer) shown parallel to and within the roadway (Tract A) should be placed on the property. Placement of utilities within Tract A will require a majority approval of existing parties to the Thompson Road Maintenance Agreement. Storm drainage. The proposed development will replace existing native soil and plantings with impervious surface. The planned stormwater detention vault is shown as discharging to the street, which has a steep slope in this area_ This is likely to adversely impact downhill properties, which have experienced adverse drainage issues in the past, as there is currently no storm drainage system along this block of 244th St SW. The "storm drain" shown on the plans is a homeowner - constructed, black plastic perforated pipe and yard drain at or barely below grade which provide little or no function. Site stormwater should be tight -lined to the nearest storm drain, or infiltrated on the property (away from the roadway)_ Although City code generally does not allow infiltration due to low permeability soils under most of Edmonds, this area is underlain by permeable sands that may allow infiltration. Aesthetics. The new development will be substantially out of character with the existing houses, which were platted with great care and professionally designed and landscaped. The houses are designed in the 60's Northwest Contemporary style, and are uniquely situated on the lots (mostly at different angles to each other) to create private settings on relatively small lots. Placement of two identical three story houses perpendicular to the street as shown will alter the character of the neighborhood and devalue existing properties_ The nine large -diameter "legacy" trees on the site are as much as 100 ft in height. Edmonds has tried to preserve trees, and even the Seattle Times this week has expressed concern that green areas have been vastly reduced in the years since our neighborhood was established. Cutting these trees will decrease animalfbird habitat and increase ambient noise. September 17, 2006 Page 3 In conclusion, and based on the concerns listed above, we recommend the City deny approval of the proposed development application. Installation of utilities and driveways servicing the proposed new properties will require a majority approval of the ten existing parties to the Thompson Road Maintenance Agreement for the private roadway, which is not likely to be granted without proper assurance of the issues being addressed. Approval of the application will likely result in an appeal by the parties of record. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Arnie Sugar �cc�� L —Sc ovill