bld20070210 setback info.pdf890-19gv
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5TH AVE. N.. EDMONDS, WA 98020 . (206) 771-0220 . PAX T206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF. THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
LAURA M. HALL
MAYOR
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEALS FILE: AP -93-1.10
OF CARL PEARSON
OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
`DECISION: The appeal is upheld in part, the revocation
of the short plat originally issued by the
Edmonds Planning Department on the short
subdivision is removed and a modification of
the short subdivision is granted.
,INTRODUCTION
On March 27, 1989, the City of Edmonds approved a three lot short
subdivision on property located at 16311 - 75th Place West, The
subdivision was approved subject to conditions. On May 11, 1993
the Planning Department of the City of Edmonds voided the short
plat that had been approved and imposed new conditions for the
development of the site. The Planning Department's decision was
appealed by the owner of the property, Carl Pearson (hereinafter
referred to as appellant).
A hearing on the appeal was held before the Hearing Examiner of the
City of Edmonds on July 1, 1993. An additional hearing was held on
July 8, 1993.
At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
JOHN BISSEL
Planning Dept.
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
CARL PEARSON
8227 - 229th St. S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the
record for the hearing:
Exhibit 1 -- Staff Report with the following attachments
Attachment 1 - Vicinity/Zoning Map
It 2 - Letter of appeal
" 3 - Planning Department's Hearing Officers
Staff Report and Decision re: Short Plat
Compliance Review; file number S--8-87
• Incorporated August II, 1890 •
SiKtPr CitiPa Tntorn;)6nnA1 --- HP4;nan .lancer,
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: AP -93-110 7/15/93
Page 2
Exhibits continued:
It
4 - Originally recorded short plat map
It
5 - Approved development plan
" 6 - Proposed recording cover sheet with
proposed conditions of approval
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the
appellants, evidence elicited during the public hearing and as a
result of the personal inspection of the subject property and
surrounding areas by the Hearing Examiner, the following Findings
of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the
Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. On March 27, 1989, the City of Edmonds approved a three lot
short subdivision for the property located at 16311 - 75th Place
West, Edmonds, Washington. The short plat (s-8-87) was approved
subject to a significant number of conditions.
2. On May 11, 1993, the City of Edmonds Planning Department
determined that conditions of the subdivision had not been
satisfied. As a result, the City voided the original approval of
the plat and established new conditions that had to be complied
with by June 15, 1993. In addition, conditions that had to be
complied with by September 1, 1993 were also imposed. The
appellant submitted an appeal of the Planning Department's decision
voiding the original short plat.
3. On July 1, 1993, a hearing on the appeal was held. At the
public hearing, the appellant7 provided extensive testimony and
evidence to support his contention that the City of Edmonds had,
through its actions, effectively prohibited him from completing the
work of the platting of the short subdivision. Because of
inattention to a request for a conditional use permit and the
revocation of a building permit, the appellant argued that he
effectively was estopped from performing the development work and
that the City"s actions were being used to void the original
permits.
4. At the July 1, 1993 hearing the City presented testimony that
the appellant had not completed installation of all required plat
improvements within the specified period of time. As a result, the
site was not being developed.
5. Ater listening to extensive testimony from both sides with
regard to the City's actions and the lack of completion of the
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: AP -93-110 7/15/93
Page 3
Preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds
continued the hearing for the purpose of allowing the appellant and
the City to resolve certain issues. The hearing was continued to
July 8, 1993.
6. During the week between July 1 and July 8, 1993 the appellant
and City representatives met to resolve issues relating to the
short plat. The purpose of the meeting was to draft conditions for.
the development of the short plat that could be accomplished. by the
appellant within a reasonable time, while at the same time,
satisfying the legal requirements of the City and the State of
Washington.
7. As part of the solution the City proposed that a modification
of the short plat be approved subject to conditions and that the
appellant and the City enter into an agreement relating to
conditions of the plat.
a. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.75:075 sets
forth the requirements for modifications of short plats. The
criteria for modifications, which are the same criteria as for
variances, include:
A. Because of the special circumstances relating to the
property, the 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.
B. 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. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
D. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the.
purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in
which the property is located.
E. 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.same zone.
F. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow
the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: AP -93-110 7/15/93
Page 4
(ECDC)
9. The proposed modification involved the location of the roadway
and the establishment of setbacks for lots one and two. The
proposed modification would create the following setbacks for lot
one: ten feet from south line; twenty-five feet from west line;
fifteen from the edge ofhe private joint access right of way
found along the north line�fifty feet from the toe of the slope as
determined by the original recorded subdivision, unless the edge of
the private access right of way protrudes west of the fifty foot
setback of the toe of the slope.] In that case, a minimum five foot
setback must be maintained from the edge of the right of way. The
setbacks for lot two would be: ten feet from the north line;
twenty-five feet from the west line; fifteen from the edge of the
private joint access right of way found along the south line; and,
fifty feet from the toe of the slope as determined by the original
recorded subdivision, unless the edge of the private access right
of way protrudes west of the fifty foot setback from the toe of the
slope. In that case, a minimum five foot setback must be
maintained from the edge of the right of way.
10. The topography of the subject property includes a significant
slope downward from east to west. The eastern portion of the
subject property is unsuitable for building lots. In addition,
there is a steep slope near the western edge of the property which
makes access difficult to the subject property. In order to
provide access within this limited natural area, the appellant has
proposed a joint access for lots one and two. The City has
indicated that the proposal is reasonable because of the special
circumstances of the steep slopes on the site.
11. The modification is not a grant of a special privilege. The
unusual steep topographical configurations of the site along with
the geographical limitations necessitate some relief in order for
the property to be developed.
12. The Comprehensive Plan of the subject property is low density
residential and the zoning is RS -20. The requested modification is
consistent with both of these designations.. All of the lots will
exceed 20,000 square feet and will be developed as low density
residential. The modification will allow more reasonable access to
each of these lots.
13. The requested modification will not be detrimental to other
properties in the area. The property is located immediately west
and below a steep bank that slopes sharply. All buildings on the
property east of the subject property are approximately 100 feet
above the building sites of the subject property and are set back
because the steep slope is on the appellant's property. Thus,
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
'RE: AP --93-114 7/15/93
Page 5
there will be no significant impact to any of the properties east
of the property. In addition, there appears to be no problem with
slippage or sloughage from the bank. The properties nearest the
site to the west are over ninety feet from the proposed lots.
14. The proposed location of the roadway has been reviewed and
recommended by a geotechnical engineer.
15. The requested modification appears to be a minimum request in
order for the appellant to develop the property.
16. In addition to the modification, the City recommended that the
short plat be further amended with a Proposed 'agreement setting
forth further conditions ofapproval of the plat. A copy of the
agreement is attached hereto and incorporated in these findings by
this reference.
17. The appellant indicated support of the agreement with a few
exceptions. specifically, he requested that paragraph 16 and #7
should be revised to address time limits to building permit
#910302. According to the appellant, building permit #910867,
which was issued for lot #3, should have a one year life from the
date of the decision. This would allow a building period of one
year to complete the structure. According to the appellant, this
amount of time should be allowed because of prior City action
relating to the work stoppage on site. The necessary construction
that would take approximately nine months has not been allowed to
be done.
18. The appellant further contended that development permit
#910302 should be revised to allow 259 days to finish the
development. According to the appellant, the actions of the
previous inspectors of the City of Edmonds, effectively eliminated
106 days from the completion of the plat. This amount of time,
according to the appellant, should be added to the total time
remaining on the plat permit.
19. The appellant submitted that condition #.9 is vague and should
be rewritten. He contended that it should be consistent with ECDC
chapter 20.15. . In particular, the appellant contended that
provisions should be made for maintenance of native growth .so that
it does not negatively impact the subject property.
20. The appellant contended that condition 110 is vague. He
submitted that a more generalized condition relating to landscaping
for erosion control should be added.
21. The appellant contended that paragraph #14 should include a
clause indicating that any consistency with the short plat file, s-
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: AP -93-110- 7/15/93
Page 6
8-87, and the site development plan agreed to by the City, should
be decided based on the site development plan.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The appellant appealed a May 11, 1993 Planning Department
decision voiding a short plat that had been approved for the
development of property at 1631.1 - 75th Place West, Edmonds,
Washington and the imposition of new conditions for the development
of that site. In reaching settlement on this appeal, the appellant
amended his application to include a petition for the modification
of the short plat to allow realignment of the roadway and the
establishment of setbacks for lots one and two for the proposed
short plat. In addition, the City and the appellant submitted a
proposed agreement to address the conditions with regard to the
development of the plat. Included in the conditions are provisions
for time limits for building permits and development permits.
2. The modification of short plats is reviewed pursuant to the
requirements as set forth in ECDC 20.75.075. These requirements,
which are the same for variance review criteria (ECDC 20.85.07.0),
have been identified in finding number eight. The proposal of the
appellant to modify the short plat with a realignment of the road
and the establishment of setbacks satisfies these criteria. The
manner in which they are satisfied has been addressed in the
findings of this document and those findings are hereby adopted as
conclusions in support of this decision.
3. The agreement between the appellant and the City for the
establishment of the conditions for the completion of the short
subdivision has been submitted and reviewed. With limited
exceptions, the agreement is consistent with the subdivision
ordinances of the City of Edmonds and especially those as set forth
in ECDC 20.75.
4. The agreement paragraphs number one, two, three, four, eight,
twelve, thirteen, fifteen, and sixteen are acceptable as stated
therein and should be adopted as part of the settlement agreement.
5. The agreement paragraphs number six and seven must be
redrafted to adequately reflect the time remaining on building
permit #910867. Because of the confusion involving the development
of the buildings on lot three, and because of the City's nonaction
with regard to a conditional use permit and work stoppage of this
permit, the most equitable solution for time to complete this
permit should be one year from the date of this decision.
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: AP -93-110 7/15/93
Page 7
6. The development permit #910302 has been effectively terminated
for 106 days. Part of this is because of the inattention of the
City. As a result of this inattention and because equity dictates
it, this permit should be restarted, allowing the appellant an
additional 259 days to complete the plat development. The
agreement paragraph numbers six and seven should reflect this time
limit.
7. The agreement paragraph number nine should be restated to
read: "No native growth east of the toe of the slope should be
disturbed unless dead, dying, or diseased are posing a hazard to
the public. The appellant, however, may maintain landscaping to
protect the base and the maintenance shall not be considered a
disturbance.,,
S. Condition number ten relating to landscaping plantings only
being native to the Northwest or richer draught resistance should
be eliminated. In its place the following paragraph should be
imposed: "Landscaping that is needed for erosion control is
required throughout the site."
9. The agreement paragraph number eleven should be amended to
read: "Landscape irrigation systems needing permits by the City of
Edmonds are prohibited from the plat or any individual
developments, unless a specific design is approved by a licensed
geotechnical engineer, subject to review according to the City of
Edmonds Landslide Hazard Ordinance (ECDC 19.05).
10. The agreement paragraph number fourteen should be amended to
read: "The appellant shall follow all requirements of the
Engineering Division as found in the City of Edmonds Planning
Department file S-8-87, and as required by the approved site
development plan. Any inconsistencies shall be decided based on
the site development plan."
11. Even though the City of Edmonds
subdivision is void, this decision of
administrative procedures of the City
DECISION
has the right to declare the
the City shall be subject to
of Edmonds.
Based upon the preceding findings of facts and conclusions, the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon
the impressions of the Hearing Examiner upon review of testimony
and evidence, it is hereby ordered: the appeal of Carl Pearson is
upheld in part and the revocation of the short plat originally
issued by the Edmonds Planning Department on May 11, 1993 is hereby
voided and removed. Further, the appellant is granted the
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: AP -93-110 7/15/93
Page 8
modification of the short subdivision to realign the roadway on
lots one and two and to establish setbacks for lots one and two.
This modification is granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The realignment of the roadway shall be approved by
the City prior to any clearing or grading;
2. The setbacks for lots one and two shall be as set
forth in finding number mine of this document.
3. The short plat, 5-8-87, is hereby amended to include
the agreement between the City of Edmonds and the
appellant. The agreement shall be consistent with the
Conclusions of law as set forth in.this document.
Entered this 15th day of July, 1993, pursuant to the authority
granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community
Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
y
Hearing Examiner
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds
for appeal, may be filed with the Planning Department, City of
Edmonds, Civic Center; Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen
(14) days -of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action.
In this matter any appeal must be received .by the Department prior
to 5:00 p.m. on July 31, 1993.
1