S-07-57 Staff Report.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
To: File No. S-2007-57
From:
ennifer Machu anner
Date: October 12, 2007
File: S-2007-57
Applicant: Michel Construction, Inc.
Agent: Scott Schlumberger
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2
A. Application... ....... ....................................................... .................................................................... 2
B. Decision on Subdivision................................................................................................................... 3
C. Decision on Modification Request....................................................................................................3
11,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................4
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance....................................................................................4
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................ 6
C. Analysis of the Requested Modification........................................................................................... 6
D. Compliance with the Zoning Code.................................................................................................... 8
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
............................................................... 8
F. Environmental Assessment............................................................................................................... 8
G. Critical Areas Review.......................................................................................................................8
H. Comments......................................................................................:............................I...I.........I....... 8
III.
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS..........................................................................9
A. Request for Reconsideration............................................................................................................. 9
B. Appeals............................................................................................................................................. 9
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals..................................................................................9
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL................:....................................................................................9
V.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................9
VI.
ATTACHMENTS: ..............................................................................................................
9
VII.
PARTIES OF RECORD...... .. .. 10
Michel Construction, Inc.
4 -Lot Townhouse Subdivision
File No. S-2007-57
Page 2 of 10
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot addressed as 21207 — 82"d Place West into four townhouse
lots (Attachment 1). See the Zoning and Vicinity Map for reference (Attachment 2). The site is located in a
Multiple -Family Residential (RM -2.4) zone that requires a minimum of 2,400 square feet of site area per
dwelling unit. The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3). Building permits
for four detached residences have been issued on the subject property under the new addresses of 21205,
21209, 21213, and 21217 — 82nd PIace West. Civil improvements have also been approved. The building
permits and civil improvements were reviewed in conjunction with building permits for four detached
residences on the adjacent lot to the south addressed as 21215 — 82n4 Place West under the new addresses of
21207, 21211, 21215, and 21219 — 82nd Place West.
The four detached residences on the subject property and four detached residences on the adjacent property to
the south received design review under Architechural Design Board (ADB) File Nos. PLN -2005-0170 and
PLN -2005-0171 and building permit review under File Nos. BLD -2006-0794 through BLD -2006-0801. It
was determined that the proposed development meets the minimum site development standards for a
multifamily project located within the RM -2.4 zone; therefore, permits were issued and the development is
currently under construction. Refer to Attachment 4 for a copy of the approved site plan for the development
including the adjacent property to the south.
Under the subject application, the applicant has proposed a four -lot townhouse subdivision in order to create
individual lots for each of the detached dwelling units on the subject property. In addition, the applicant has
submitted a modification request for a reduction in the minimum required western street setback for proposed
Lot 1 from 15 feet to 14 feet in order to allow for a section of building modulation that is approximately 13
feet in length to project into the minimum required western street setback by a foot (Attachment 5). A four -
lot townhouse subdivision is currently proposed for the adjacent lot to the south under File No. S-2007-58,
A. Application
1. Applicant: Michel Construction, Inc.
2. Site Location: 21207 — 82nd place West (see Attachment 2).
3. Request: To divide one lot with a total area of 12,175 square feet into four townhouse lots in a
Multiple -Family Residential (RM -2.4) zone (see Attachment 3). The applicant has also
submitted a modification request for a reduction in the minimum required western street
setback for proposed Lot 1 from 15 feet to 14 feet in order to allow for a section of building
modulation that is approximately 13 feet in length to project into the minimum required
western street setback by a foot (see Attachment 5).
4, Review Process: Following the Comment Period, Planning Staff makes an administrative
decision.
Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.30.030,
site development standards for the RM -2.4 zone.
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public
works requirements.
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.85,
criteria for approval of a variance.
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75,
subdivision requirements.
e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95,
staff review requirements.
£ Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 21.100.040,
definition of townhouse.
Note: All code sections referenced in this report can be viewed via the City's website at
www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
Michel Construction, Inc.
4 -Lot Townhouse Subdivision
File No, 5-2007-57
Page 3 of 10
S. 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. This application is subject to all applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with all applicable requirements.
2. Prior to recording, the applicant must complete the following requirements:
a) Complete the improvements shown on the approved civil plans for the four detached
residences on the subject property.
b) Make the following revisions to the plat:
(1) If setbacks are to be included on the plat, correct the setbacks shown to
reflect those stated in Section II.A.3.d of this report.
(2) Correct the width of the ingress, egress, and utility easement to reflect the
width that was approved/constructed with the building permits for the four
detached residences on the subject property.
(3) Show all easements as required.
(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. S-
2007-57 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division."
(5) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification,
hold harmless agreement, and staff approval blocks.
c) Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor's
requirements for recording, including all signatures in black ink.
d) 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.
e) Submit an updated copy of the title report (short plat certificate) with the documents
proposed to be recorded. Please note that the updated title report must be prepared
within 30 days of submittal.
3. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following:
a) Provide the City of Edmonds Planning Division with three copies of the recorded
plat, with the recording number written on them. The City will not consider the
subdivision to have been completed until this is done.
C. Decision on Modification Request
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application
and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning
Division,-
The
ivision:
The Modification Request to reduce the minimum required western street setback for
proposed Lot 1 from 15 feet to 14 feet in order to allow for a section of building modulation
that is approximately 13 feet in length to project. into the minimum required western street
setback by a foot is DENIED.
Michel Construction, Inc.
4 -tot Townhouse Subdivision
File No. 5-2007-57
Page 4of10
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
Introduction
a. Setting:
The subject property at 21207 — 82 Place West is located in the Multiple -Family
Residential (RM -2.4) zone (Attachment 2). Properties within the vicinity are zoned Multiple -
Family Residential (RM -2.4), Neighborhood Business (BN), and Single -Family Residential
(RS -8). Neighboring properties are developed with multi -family residences, single-family
residences, and offices.
b. Topography and Vegetation:
The subject property is relatively level. There is an approximate five-foot drop down to the
subject property near the northern and eastern property lines. The site is currently under
construction; therefore, it contains little vegetation. Vegetation will be re-established
following construction activities in accordance with the landscaping plan that was approved
for the site in conjunction with the design and building permit reviews.
C. Lot Layout:
The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3). Lot 1 will be
created on the western portion of the property and Lot 4 will be created on the eastern portion
of the property, with Lots 2 and 3 in between Lots 1 and 4. The proposed lots will be
accessed via an ingress/egress easement along the southern portion of the subject property
and shared with the adjacent property to the south.
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). No apparent environmental resources are
present on the site.
b. The proposal minimizes grading because the subject property is relatively flat and the lots
will be accessed via a shared access easement that is also shared with the adjacent property to
the south (21215 — 82"d Place West).
C. No hazardous conditions, such as flood plains, steep slopes, or unstable soil or geologic
conditions exist at this site.
d. The Engineering Division has reviewed and approved civil plans for the site in conjunction
with review of the building permit applications for the new detached residences. Any
proposed development on the site should be designed to minimize off-site impacts on
drainage. All new impervious surfaces must be connected to a detention system.
3. Townhouse Subdivision Requirements (Lot Size and Layout)
a. The proposal is for a four -lot townhouse subdivision. According to ECDC 21.100.040, a
townhouse is a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria:
• No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically;
• Common side walls joining units;
• Not more than six dwelling units in one structure;
• Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as
defined in the zoning code;
• Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the coverage of the
individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the zoning on the site. Portions
Michel Construction, Inc.
4 -Lot Townhouse Subdivision
File No. S-2007-57
Page 5 of 10
of the site not subdivided for individual units shall be held in common by the
owners of the individual units.
Note: According to Interpretations File No. 2003-01, because no minimum number of
dwelling units is stated in ECDC 21.100.040, a proposed development of detached
dwelling units may be subdivided as a townhouse subdivision. Additionally, for detached
units in townhouse subdivisions, internal lot lines may be placed along the edge(s) of
exterior walls of the dwelling units or anywhere between the dwelling units.
b. Lots must be designed to contain a usable building area. Based on a review of the project,
the analysis in this section, and the previous design review, each of the proposed townhouse
lots is buildable.
C. Lot sizes and dimensions. Because this project is being developed as a townhouse
subdivision, lot area per unit may be as small as the coverage of the individual unit, as long
as the overall density meets the underlying zoning of the site. For this project, the
underlying density on the entire project site could yield a maximum of 4 dwelling units. As
a result, the proposal meets this requirement.
d. Setbacks:
Typical setbacks for lots in the RM -2.4 zone are:
Street setbacks: 15'
Side setbacks: 10'
Rear setbacks: 15'
Using the townhouse subdivision model, the exterior of the project site must meet the
underlying zoning setbacks. In this case, the exterior setbacks approved with the building
permit applications conform with the underlying RM -2.4 requirements. With respect to
internal setbacks, the detached units have the flexibility to place lot lines from the outer
edge of a dwelling unit's exterior wall (zero lot lines) to anywhere between an adjacent
dwelling unit. The proposed townhouse lots have interior setbacks which range between
approximately four and five feet.
e. Lot Coverage:
1.) 45% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RM -2.4 zone.
2.) The lot coverage of the approved detached residences was reviewed to comply with the
45% lot coverage requirement over the entire project site during building permit review.
4. Dedications
a. The Engineering Division reviewed the proposed development with civil plan and building
permit reviews for the four detached residences and determined that no street dedication was
required.
5. Improvements
a. All required improvements were identified with civil plan and building permit reviews for
the four detached residences. No additional improvements are required with the townhouse
subdivision.
6. Flood Plain Management
a. This project is not located in a FEMA designated Flood Plain.
Michel Construction, Inc.
4 -Lot Townhouse Subdivision
File No, S-2007-57
Page 6 of 10
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
1, Comprehensive Plan Goats 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.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,
C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in
order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in
accordance with the following policies:
C.2. Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and
building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the
trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped,
boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided.
2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: The proposal will establish the
property lines for four new townhouse lots; however, it will not cause any changes in the density
allowed on the original subject property. The overall proposal should not cause any adverse
impacts and appears to be consistent with the residential development goals and policies.
C. Analysis of the Requested Modification
1. The applicant has submitted a modification request for a reduction in the minimum required
western street setback for proposed Lot 1 from 15 feet to 14 feet in order to allow for a section of
building modulation that is approximately 13 feet in length to .project into the minimum required
western street setback by a foot. Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.075, all criteria of a variance must be
met for a requested modification to be approved. The Criteria are as follows:
a. Special Circumstances:
That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, strict enforcement of the
zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special Circumstances should not be
predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense
which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic
view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from
the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property.
Michel Construction, Inc.
4 -Lot Townhouse Subdivision
File No, 5-2007-57
Page 7 of 10
b. Special Privilege:
That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in
comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
C. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance:
That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive
plan, the zoning ordinance and the zoning district in which the property is located.
d. Not Detrimental:
That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity and the same zone.
e. Minimum Variance:
That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
2. The applicant has presented declarations as to the merits of this proposal (Attachment 5).
3. Analysis of Compliance with Variance Criteria:
a. The applicant demonstrated in their building permit applications for the four detached units
on the subject property that the townhouses can be constructed in such a way that all
minimum required setbacks are met. It is only due to the fact that the foundation and
footing were located incorrectly that the need for a variance arises. The applicant could still
construct the residence to meet the minimum required western street setback by reducing the
depth of the modulation by approximately one foot. Therefore, since the modification
request is due to a self-imposed hardship, the special circumstances criteria has not been
met.
b. It is only due to the fact that the foundation and footing for the residence on Lot 1 were
located incorrectly that the need for a variance arises. Since this is a self-imposed hardship,
it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the requested modification.
C, The proposal would be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and would be
consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in allowing for modulation of the
western wall of the residence on Lot 1; however, in building permit File No. BLD -2006-
0748, the applicant demonstrated how the modulation desired by the Comprehensive Plan
design guidelines could be provided in such a way that meets all minimum required
setbacks. The approved building permit plans indicate that the 13 foot wide section of
modulation on the western side of the building is 3 feet deep; therefore, even if the
modulation is cut back by a foot to comply with the minimum required street setback, a 2
foot deep section of modulation could still be provided.
d. The modification would not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone.
Q, The proposed modification is not the minimum necessary to provide the building
modulation as required by the Architectural Design Board. In the building permit
application for proposed Lot 1 (File Nos. BLD -2006-0748), the applicant demonstrated how
the residence could be constructed with the required building modulation meeting all
minimum required setbacks.
4. Conclusions:
a. Since the applicant demonstrated in their building permit applications for the four detached
units on the subject property that the townhouses can be constructed in such a way that all
minimum required setbacks are met, and since it is only due to the fact that the foundation
and footing were located incorrectly that the need for a variance arises, it has been
Michel Construction, Inc.
4 -Lot Townhouse Subdivision
File No. S-2007-57
Page 8 of 10
determined that there are no special circumstances justifying the approval of the requested
modification to the minimum required western street setback for Lot 1. The modification
request was made as a result of a self-imposed hardship; therefore, the requested
modification is denied.
D. Compliance with the Zoning Code
1. With the denial of the proposed modification request, the proposed townhouse subdivision will
comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code. See sections II.A.3 and ILA.4 of this document.
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
The proposed project is not located in a Flood Plain.
F. Environmental Assessment
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. During review of the building
permit applications for the four detached residences on the subject property, it was determined that
the project was exempt from SEPA review because the project was for four or less units and did not
require over 500 cubic yards of grading. The subject proposal to subdivide the subject property
into four townhouse lots is also exempt from SEPA review because it is not increasing the number
of units or the quantity of grading for the development.
G. Critical Areas Review
Critical Areas Review numbers: CRA -2005-0071.
Results of Critical Areas Reviews: The subject property does not appear to contain any critical
areas as defined by ECDC 23.40. As a result, a waiver from the requirement to complete a study
was issued.
H. Comments
Two public comment letters were received during review of this proposal and are included as
Attachments 6 and 7.
A letter was submitted by Deloris Hoffman, Peter and Charlotte Shepperd, and David Belz. The
letter addressed the neighbors' concerns over the proposed modification request. The neighbors
feel that the requested modification should not be used as a means to resolve the encroachment
issue along the eastern side of the subject property.
City Response: Refer to Section II.0 of this report for an analysis of the requested street setback
modification for Lot 1. The proposed modification request has been denied.
Paul Mills commented that there is not sufficient on-site parking for the proposed residences and
addressed concerns over increased traffic resulting from the development of the subject property
and the adjacent property to the south with a total of eight new units.
City Response: The subject property is located within the Multiple -Residential (RM -2.4) zone,
which allows a maximum of one dwelling unit per 2,400 square feet of site area. The four
townhouses on the subject property and four townhouses on the adjacent property to the south
were reviewed and approved under all applicable code sections, including the site development
standards of the RM -2.4 zone under ECDC 16.30 and the on-site parking requirements of ECDC
17.50. The subject application is only to create lot lines between the approved residential units in
order for them to be sold off individually as townhouses.
Michel Construction, Inc.
4 -Lot Townhouse Subdivision
File No. S-2007-57
Page 9 of 10
IIL RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a reconsideration or appeal should contact the Planning Division for
further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20,100.010.G allows for City staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed
within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. The
reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in
the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.040 and 20.105.020 describes how appeals of a staff decision shall be made. The
appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name
of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the
decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be
wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14)
calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for reconsiderations and appeals tun concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once staff
has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal
continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal
period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their
decision on the reconsideration request.
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.075.100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall expire and have
no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired final plat or final short plat
approval within the five-year period."
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the staff, request a change in the valuation
of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
1. Application
2. Vicinity 1 Zoning Map
3. Subdivision Map
4. Site Plan for Building Permit Nos. BLD -2006-0794 through BLD -2006-0801
5. Modification Request
6. Comment Letter from Deloris Hoffman, Peter and Charlotte Shepperd, and David Belz
7. Comment Letter from Paul Mills
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Engineering Division
Planning Division
Mr. Scott Schlumberger
Michel Construction, Inc.
7911 — 212`h St. SW, 4102
Edmonds, WA 98026
Mr. David Belz
21222-82 Rd Pl. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Ms. Deloris Hoffman
21223 -- 82n1 Pl, W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Peter and Charlotte Shepperd
21313 — 82"d Pl. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Mr. Paul Mills
8225 -- 212" St. SW, #302
Edmonds, WA 98026
Michel Construction, Inc.
4 -Lot Townhouse Subdivision
File No. 5-2007-57
Page 10 of 10
city of edmonds
land use application -
ARCHITECTURAL, DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICIAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT" FILE # 6•
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITZONE ACI ROMP OCCUPATION DATE -% I RECD 13Y Mi/
FORMAL SUBDIVISION FEE I { C'm - a 0 RECEIPT #
'HORT SUBDIVISION
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HE STAFF PB ADB CC
OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
STREET VACATION
REZONE
SHORELINE PERMIT
VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
OTHER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) I
PROPERTY OWNER r` ',%cAel — �� ' .,\f,Nk-f PRONE # ``�7 u1ZZ_
ADDRESS * 9(( `�2Th IST -51N
E-MAIL ADDRESS {GF ' . 'ROQ4 `TI�I .�Oi vX #.425,
TAx ACCOUNT # C.0 J B ! / CM aJQ
2+ M SEC. ,��TIP. RNG. /
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE �l
APPLICANT �AI"tLPHONE #
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS C�� �! , a� , r� f FAX #
CONTACT PERSONIAGENT� . �� Umk PHONE #
ADDRESS''!
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX #
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 tof{ s a plicatio n thebahaloPof t wner as listed below.
%
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE / /" - � /
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes of in ction an posting a ant t�M—DATE
SIGNATURE OF OWNER � /`� aZ
This application form was revised on 1 /27100. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220.
L:li.€HRAAY\PLANNINGT,orms & HandautsTuhlic Ha doutsNLand Use Applieai .doc
Attachment 1
Attachment 3
#
N
W
K
c o�
a � o
_ 2
96
S
V
g -
�
a
w�✓i �
a
IV
Zu
Oia
��o
ti
�'ce
F s g
J-
N 44
u
rc .z
r
v. r
cimQy
Gam
IQs
e z
�Fi
` a A
s�
w
Jsm
aF?
u
d�z« w
w H
a J33��a
n
►- -
y _ d
--
W
y
D
N
Z
"-'
u
v
-
�a
(n
O
--
O LL
O
°-�
U
Nm
w
O
2z -
Q
M -i
2N
1=z
V}
O
of
{n
<wo
<ao
say
�..�-pro
m w �
� o ....:€
u•
zz
=
Attachment 3
3
II F' 003136863981tt � K
1 OyMR FWiI �
! � � ! / - ! spa• 22' ]e' !! e8. as ~��� J �
��' i � 1—�'_ �—\a 1249 x -��• /vr. �-� ^� � � � n
I / I! e m ��I t 19• CL
•r 89'22'38' w ea. ea - �� q' 2
i t 1 to'
� s oe•az• sa• • et. xa++
cn¢ uN
J
it CWIt.B IWG SETBACK LiK [C+4L} }
f' KaL2-9
---------- 36 • 82.32 . ___-\
_ — — --T.-- _._._._._ _
82ND PL W ----- .
------------------------------
-------------------------------------
25
`---._ _________.__- ______..-
U _ -
i$ �z
� $�"• V � wa � a
s g
2Nj
w aig
O y
c.t e
N `J 1 5 3 4 9 N 1 Q LAS8 M5 1S HWZ 'uZg _ -nN'-s
1 Arol-Lo akNoz w
o -
jaylIN Ma.195W :MOILV O I �- � ZSNOD N w
MOM
�� 11 ll W co
L W
z
w W
cc
4
^�
�
i.._ `i
to �av�'r�•`r
fa
?�
°aia �
w w
Z
HE
-- M -- M x -
n
rB
M aauid PuZ8
z
Attachment 4
fa
z
Attachment 4
Michel Construction Inc.
Modification Request J(, {4
2120782nd Pl w ?00
S-07-57 7
Nature of Request: Applicant requests a partial reduction of the front setback along 82nd
Place for Lot 1. Setback reduction is for a 13 foot long by one -foot
deep portion of the front building setback line. Required setback is
15 feet and we would like to reduce the front setback by one foot to
fourteen feet for a. section approximately 13 feet wide.
Modification Criteria:
Special Circumstances: Other property owners in the immediate area have similar side
setback encroachments, thus this request is similar to those enjoyed
by others in the area.
The special circumstances relevant to this request include the size of
and topography of the site and the location of a neighboring driveway
encroachment to the east. The applicant desires to increase the
modulation and appeal of the project so as to avoid long blank walls.
The subject short plat is slightly encroached upon by approximately
one foot at the east side (lot 4). This has pushed the overall project
about one foot to the west in order to maintain the overall side
setbacks between structures. A further factor is that the lot in
question is a corner lot; hence it has greater setbacks than other lots
in the plat.
An additional mitigating factor is the fact that the right of way in this
residential area is 60 feet wide, resulting in a wide R.O.W. relative to
the existing street width and the typical traffic experienced and
expected on this street. A minor setback reduction will not be readily
apparent, nor will it crowd the sidewalk.
Special Privilege: Approval of the modification would not result in any special privilege
to the property owner in comparison with neighboring properties. In
fact, there are adjacent properties that have side setbacks that are
less than current code. Granting this minimal modification will be
congruent with that enjoyed by neighboring properties.
Comp Plan: The modification will be consistent with the Comprehensive Pian in
that it will improve the streetscape and improve the entry of the
structure. (Community Culture: Urban Design — General Objectives)
Streetscape will be improved by modulation of the structure fronting
the street. Entry will be improved by slightly shielding the entryway
through the bump -out envisaged on the building plans.
Attachment 5
Michel Construction Inc.
Modification Request
2120782 nd pl W
S -Q7-57
Zoning Ord: Approval of the modification should be consistent with the purposes
of the zoning ordinance in the multi -family zone. The wide right of
way should relieve concerns of the structure seeming to be too close
to the street.
Not Detrimental: No detriment to the public health, safety and welfare in the area is
foreseen. In fact, the wide right of way, new sidewalks, increased
building modulation, and shielding of the entryway should increase
safety and welfare.
Minimum Modification: The modification of one foot coincides with the encroachment and
with the building design affording a shielding of the entryway.
September 10, 2007
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
1215' Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Jen Machuga, Director
RE: File# S-07-57
As residents or homeowners close to the Michel Construction, Inc development of eight
townhouses at 21207 and 21215 82nd Place West, Edmonds, we are asking for a written
explanation for the modification request on the 21207 property from a minimum 15'
setback to a 14' west street setback.
It seems logical that such a modification request should have been part of the original
development plans in accordance to an accurate land survey. Logic also suggests that
prior to the construction of the existing four foundations; this issue should have been
resolved.
To the casual observer, it might be puzzling why the modification request would apply
only to the 21207 property. This puzzle might be explained by the following information:
A 1993 survey by Columbia Land Surveying & Engineering revealed a driveway
encroachment onto the eastern boundary of the 21207 property during the 8130 and 8134
212' Ave S.W. development by Mr. & Mrs. Bob Klipinger in 1993 & 1994. Could this
encroachment account for the File #S-07-57 request? In that case, shouldn't Mr. Michel
legally claim back his encroached property through legal channels instead of asking the
City of Edmonds to resolve the matter through political channels?
Please send the written response to all of the following persons listed below.
Sincerely,
Deloris Hoffinan Peter& Charlotte Shepperd David Belz
21223 82nd Place West 21313 82nd Place West 21222 82nd Place W.
Edmonds, WA 98026 o ds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
Attachment 6
September 1, 2007
City of Edmonds Development Service Department
121 5t` Ave_ North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Sirs,
RECEIVED
SEP 0 4 2007
DEVELOPMENT sER VICES
Regarding File ff 5-07-58, Name of applicant, Michel Construction, Inc.
Subject, Townhouse subdivision of one into four lots_
Two family homes were removed and now planned are eight family units squeezed in_ This will
add, on average, sixteen vehicles to an already congested 212th St. SW. The foundations, already
in place, show the cramped spacing, with no off street parking, beyond the small two car garages.
Street parking on 2l e is not practical, parking on 82'd Pl. W. is not adequate_
I have lived in the Solaire One Condominium at 8225 212th St_ SW for 22 years_ The number of
multifamily units built in the neighborhood in the past ten years have made increased vehicle
traffic a problem to exit and enter my driveway_
With a larger number of units being built just east on 212th, the congestion will rise further.
I am opposed to this construction.
Sincerelly, q'
-Ae-&
Paul Mills
8225 212' St. SW ##302
Edmonds, WA. 98026
Attachment 7