S-07-76 Staff Report.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
To:
File S-07-76
From
:
Mike Clugston, Planner
Date:
November 27, 2007
File:
S-07-76
Applicant:
Eric B. Thuesen
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................2
A.Application........................................................................................................................................2
B.Decision on Subdivision....................................................................................................................2
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................3
A.Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance....................................................................................3
B.Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................5
C.Analysis of Modification Request.....................................................................................................7
D.Compliance with the Zoning Code....................................................................................................7
E.Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions...............................................................7
F.Environmental Assessment................................................................................................................7
G.Critical Areas Review.......................................................................................................................7
H.Comments.........................................................................................................................................7
III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS..........................................................................8
A.Request for Reconsideration.............................................................................................................8
B.Appeals.............................................................................................................................................8
C.Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals..................................................................................8
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................8
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................8
VI. APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................8
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................9
Thuesen Short Plat
File No. S-07-76
Page 2 of 9
I.INTRODUCTION
th
The applicant is proposing a three-lot short plat of a previously approved two-lot short plat at 509 9 Avenue
North (Attachment 1). The site is located in a Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone that allows lots with a
minimum area of 12,000 square feet (Attachment 2). The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision
map (Attachment 3). The existing residence and garage will remain on proposed Lot 1.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and Release (Attachment 4), the City is reviewing the current
development application against the City of Edmonds Community Development Code as it existed at the
vesting date of the original application on January 18, 2005. The current development application was
determined to be complete on October 17, 2007.
A.Application
1.Applicant: Eric B. Thuesen
th
2.Site Location: 509 9 Avenue North
3.Request: To divide two lots with a total area of 45,037 square feet into three lots in a Single-
Family Residential (RS-12) zone.
4.Review Process: Following the Comment Period, Planning Staff makes an administrative
decision.
5.Major Issues:
a.Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030,
site development standards for the RS-12 zone.
b.Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public
works requirements.
c.Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75,
subdivision requirements.
d.Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95,
staff review requirements.
Note: All code sections referenced in this report can be viewed via the Citys 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 or a bond must be posted for their completion. In
completing the civil plans, the applicant must address the Engineering Division
conditions listed Required Prior to Recording in Attachment 5.
b)Make the following revisions to the plat:
(1)Add to the face of the Plat: Conditions of approval must be met and can be
found in the final approval for the short subdivision located in File S-07-76
in the City of Edmonds Planning Division.
(2)Include on the plat all required information, including owners certification,
hold harmless agreement, and staffs approval block.
(3)If setbacks are to be included on the plat, add the following statement to the
face of the plat: Setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no right.
c)Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditors
requirements for recording, including all signatures in black ink.
Thuesen Short Plat
File No. S-07-76
Page 3 of 9
d)Submit two copies of the documents to be recorded for the Planning Division and
Engineering Divisions approval. Once approved, the applicant must record the
documents with Snohomish County Auditors office.
e)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
complete until this is done.
b)Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed Required with Building
Permit on Attachment 5.
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 Modification Request to reduce the minimum required eastern setback for proposed Lot
1 from 10 feet to 5 feet is DENIED.
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
Introduction
1.
a.Setting:
th
The subject property at 509 9 Avenue North is located in the Single-Family Residential
(RS-12) zone and is surrounded by similarly zoned and developed lots on the north and east
(Attachment 2). A church and its associated open space are adjacent to the subject property
on the west. Parcels to the south are zoned RS-6 but developed similarly to the RS-12 areas
due to local environmental constraints.
b.Topography and Vegetation:
The subject site is fairly flat on the eastern and western edges but slopes downward steeply
from east to west in the middle of the parcel. Vegetation consists of typical urban-residential
landscaping, including grass, trees and shrubs.
c.Lot Layout:
The proposed lot layout is shown on the preliminary plat map (Attachment 3). Proposed Lots
thth
1 and 2 will be flag lots. Lot 3 will front on 8 Avenue N. Lot 1 will gain access from 9
th
Avenue N using an existing easement. Lots 2 and 3 will gain access via 8 Avenue N and
Lot 2 will have an access easement on Lot 3 (Attachment 6)
Environmental Criteria
2.
a.Section 20.75.085 of the Edmonds Community Development Code states that where
environmental resources exist such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife, the proposal shall be
designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. The subject parcel
contains several large trees, primarily on Lot 1. The applicant is encouraged to retain these.
A small isolated wetland existed on proposed Lot 3 but was permitted to be filled through
approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Attachment 10).
b.The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by
relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography. The proposal
minimizes grading by using a shared driveway for Lots 2 and 3. Lot placement generally
follows topography and proposed house site placement does as well (Attachment 6).
Thuesen Short Plat
File No. S-07-76
Page 4 of 9
c.A subdivision of hazardous land (flood plains, steep slopes, unstable soils or geologic
conditions) shall be denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected. A steep slope
hazard was identified on the site (Attachment 7). According to two geotechnical reports
(Attachments 8 and 9), the slope is stable and buildable.
d.The proposal shall minimize off-site impacts to drainage, views, and so forth. A drainage
plan must be submitted to the Engineering Division prior to recording the short plat and/or
when a building permit is applied for on this site. All proposed development on the site must
be designed to meet current code in order to minimize off-site drainage impacts. Because of
the sloping nature of the parcel, local views should not be greatly impacted when Lots 2 and
3 are developed.
Lot and Street Layout
3.
a.This criterion requires staff to examine whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with
the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and that the lots would ultimately be
buildable. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section, a three-lot short
plat is a reasonable use of the property.
b.Lot sizes and dimensions:
Lot Area:
Required Proposed Proposed
Lot Area Gross sq. ft Net sq. ft
12,000 19,786 19,786
Lot 1
12,000 12,022 12,022
Lot 2
12,000 13,229 12,019
Lot 3
Lot Width:
The required lot width in the RS-12 zone is 80 feet. The proposed lots appear to meet this
requirement.
Setbacks and Lot Coverage
4.
a.In order to approve a subdivision, the proposal must meet all requirements of the zoning
ordinance, or a modification must be approved. Based on the development standards for the
RS-12 zone, setbacks for the lots should be as follows:
Lot 1: All side setbacks (10 feet)
Lot 2: All side setbacks (10 feet)
th
Lot 3: Street Setback (25 feet) from the west property line adjacent to 8 Avenue N
Side Setback (10 feet) on north and south property lines
Rear Setback (25 feet) from the east property line
Existing Structures / Encroachments: The existing residence and garage on Lot 1 will
remain. When approved in 2005 (BLD20050141) and as renewed in 2007
(BLD20070321), the garage on Lot 1 was sited with a reduced 5 rear (eastern) property
line setback which is allowable for accessory structures covering less than 600 square
feet. The previous subdivision application (S-05-09) made this structure non-conforming
since Lot 1 is a flag with 10 property line setbacks. The modification request associated
with this subdivision application is seeking to reduce the required 10 setback to 5 in
order to make the garage a conforming structure.
Corner Lots: Neither of the proposed lots are considered corner lots.
b.Flag or Interior lot determination: Lots 1 and 2 are flag lots.
c.Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: The house and garage on Lot 1 will
remain and cover approximately 16.5% of the lot. There are currently no structures on
Thuesen Short Plat
File No. S-07-76
Page 5 of 9
proposed Lots 2 and 3 and therefore they have zero lot coverage. Any future buildings or
structures will be allowed to cover no more than 35% of either lot.
Dedications
5.
a.No dedications were required for the proposed subdivision.
Improvements
6.
a.See Engineering Requirements (Attachment 5).
Flood Plain Management
7.
a.This project is not located in a FEMA designated Flood Plain.
B.Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
1.
The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development
that apply to this project.
Residential Development
B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse
lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options
available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be
approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in
accordance with the following policies:
B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with
architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings,
adding to the community identity and desirability.
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible.
B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful
control of other types of development and expansion based upon the
following principles:
B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental
impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides,
etc.
B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
2.Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: The proposal involves creating
two new single family building lots, thereby increasing the potential amount of housing within the
City. The development of the parcel must take into consideration the presence of the steep slope
hazard area on the parcel.
C.Analysis of Modification Request
1.The applicant has requested a modification to a required setback as allowed in ECDC 20.75.075,
which requires all criteria of a variance to be met if the requested modification is to be approved.
The Criteria are as follows:
a.Special Circumstances:
That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, strict enforcement of the
Thuesen Short Plat
File No. S-07-76
Page 6 of 9
zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special Circumstances should not be
predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense
which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic
view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from
the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property.
b.Special Privilege:
That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in
comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
c.Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance:
That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan,
the zoning ordinance and the zoning district in which the property is located.
d.Not Detrimental:
That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental
to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the
vicinity and the same zone.
e.Minimum Variance:
That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
2.The Applicant has presented declarations as to the merits of his proposal (see Attachment 7).
3.Additional Findings:
a.Prior to any subdivision at the subject address, the parcel was rectangular in shape and
th
extended from 8 Avenue North approximately 410 to the eastern property line. When the
house and garage were approved in 2005, the eastern property line setback was 25 feet.
Twenty-five feet is the standard rear setback in the RS-12 zone. Because the garage was a
detached accessory structure of less than 600 square feet, the 25 rear setback was reduced to
5 per ECDC 16.20.050.C.
A two-lot subdivision was then proposed and approved. The portion of the original parcel
that contained the house and garage were designed as a flag lot. Flag lots have all side
setbacks 10 in the RS-12 zone. The detached garage had previously been approved with a
reduced 5 setback and through the process of subdivision, the setback became 10. As a
result, the garage became a non-conforming structure because it did not meet the setback
requirement of the newly created lot.
4.Conclusions:
a.The applicant does not have a special circumstance. The garage was originally approved
with a reduced 5 rear setback from the eastern property line per ECDC 16.20.050.C. The
applicant then created the non-conforming circumstance by himself when he sought a
subdivision that resulted in a change to the entire eastern setback of Lot 1 to 10.
b.The applicant would be receiving special privilege if the modification request were approved.
Reducing the entire eastern setback on Lot 1 to 5 is not in keeping with any other newly
created lot (flag or otherwise) in the RS-12 zone. The only setbacks that may be reduced are
rear setbacks and that is only for accessory structures covering less than 600 square feet.
c.The Comprehensive Plan is largely silent regarding proposals of this nature. Generally
speaking, creation and retention of single-family homes is encouraged while intrusion of
views and privacy is discouraged. At the same time, the proposal is not consistent with the
zoning ordinance. While the detached garage on Lot 1 is a non-conforming structure, it may
be continued, maintained and even rebuilt in some circumstances according ECDC
17.40.020. Reducing an existing setback to make a non-conforming building into a
conforming building is not the intent of the zoning ordinance. On the contrary, owners are
usually required to bring such structures into compliance with the existing zoning code.
Thuesen Short Plat
File No. S-07-76
Page 7 of 9
d.While somewhat uncertain, the proposed modification could be detrimental to property
owners in the immediate vicinity. If granted the modification, the applicant could
conceivably build a 25 residential structure to the 5 property line setback. This could be
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. Public health and safety would not
be affected by the proposal.
e.Reducing the entire property line setback of Lot 1 from 10 to 5 is not the minimum
necessary to make the detached garage a conforming structure even if that were
recommended or required by the zoning code.
D.Compliance with the Zoning Code
1.The proposed subdivision must comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code. See Sections
II.A.3 and II.A.4 of this document.
E.Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
1.The proposed project is not located in a Flood Plain.
F.Environmental Assessment
1.Is this site within a shoreline area (within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Puget
Sound)? No.
2.Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application? No. If more than 500 cubic yards
of grading will be required, an Environmental Checklist is required. At this point, 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 necessary, the City will require an Environmental Checklist to be submitted and will issue
an Environmental Determination.
G.Critical Areas Review
1.Critical Areas Review number: CA-01-67 (Attachment 7).
Results of Critical Areas Review: This review was conducted under the Critical Areas code that
existed prior to January 18, 2005. Critical Areas code was subsequently updated in March 2005.
A critical areas study was required due to the presence of a possible steep slope hazard pursuant
to ECDC Chapter 20.15 (the controlling critical areas code at the time). The applicant submitted
two geotechnical reports (Attachments 8 and 9) describing the hazard. Both reports indicated that
the slope and soils on the lot were stable and that home construction on the parcel was viable
from a geotechnical standpoint.
While not identified during the initial critical areas review, a small wetland was subsequently
identified on the western portion of the subject parcel. This wetland was delineated, classified
and mapped. Because of its size, the wetland was not regulated under the Citys Critical Areas
ordinance at the time of the initial subdivision application. The applicant eventually sought and
received approval to fill the wetland from the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Attachment 10).
H.Comments
One public comment letter was received during the review of this proposal which is included as
Attachment 11.
th
1. Vivian Olson (503 9 Avenue N) had concerns about the proposed modification request to
reduce the entire eastern property line setback of proposed Lot 1 from 10 feet to 5 feet.
Staff Response: See Staffs Decision on Modification Request (I.C.). As noted, the
modification request sought by the applicant was denied.
Thuesen Short Plat
File No. S-07-76
Page 8 of 9
III.RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A.Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for City staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed
within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. The
reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in
the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed.
B.Appeals
Section 20.105.040 and 20.105.020 describes how appeals of a staff decision shall be made. The
appeal shall be made in writing and shall include: the decision being appealed along with the name
of the project, 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 staff
has issued a 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 staff issues a 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 Assessors Office.
VI.APPENDICES
1.Land Use Application, dated August 31, 2007
2.Vicinity / Zoning Map
3.Preliminary Plat Map, received October 9, 2007
4. Settlement Agreement and Release, approved July 24, 2007
5. Engineering Requirements
6. Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Utilities Map, received August 31, 2007
7. Applicants Statement for Modification Request
8. Critical Areas Determination (CA-01-67), dated May 1, 2001
9. Preliminary geotechnical evaluation by Dennis Bruce, PE, dated October 24, 2001
10. Geotechnical and drainage evaluation by Dennis Bruce, PE, dated January 13, 2005
11. Corps of Engineers letter to the applicant regarding the wetland, received August 17, 2007
12. Comment letter from Vivian Olson, dated November 8, 2007
Thuesen Short Plat
File No. S-07-76
Page 9 of 9
VII.PARTIES OF RECORD
Planning Division
Eric Thuesen
Engineering Division
th
509 9 Avenue North
Parks and Recreation
Edmonds, WA 98020
Public Works
Fire Department
Vivian Olson
th
503 9 Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020