The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-10-1986 - Supplemental Materials/T c,_ C_ h vv, e-, t-�A I LAW OFFICES OF DAVIS, WRIGHT, TODD, RIESE & JONES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 4200 SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98154 (206) 622-3150 TELEX: 32891 TELECOPIER: (206) 622-4322 March 10, 1986 `-" Medina City Council P.O. Box 146 Medina, WA 98039 550 WEST 7TH AVENUE SUITE 1450 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 (907) 276 4488 TELECOPIER: (907) 279-1761 1752 N STREET N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 1202) 822 9775 TELECOPIER: (202) 296-3196 110 110TH AVENUE N.E. SUITE 700 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 45 1 -8686 TELECOPIER: (206) 451-9397 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE RE: Ordinance Deleting the Area of Private Lanes from Calculation of Minimum Lot Areas Dear City Council: I am writing on behalf of our clients, Don and Judith Norman, who are residents of Medina. We are recommending a change in the language of the above -referenced ordinance. Our clients live on a parcel with approximately one acre (i.e., 43,560 square feet) of land area. Their property, however, is crossed by a private lane, a right-of-way, and several pedestrian and utility access easements. Depending on how the above -proposed ordinance is interpreted, the Normans' property could change from one with potentially two 20,000 square foot lots to a parcel which would qualify for only one unit under their current R-20 zoning. We believe that this would be an unfair and unnecessary result because the rights -of -way and easements on their parcel are not improved and will never be improved. The right-of-way and other access areas are used as "greenbelt" on the Normans' parcel and will always serve such purpose. The Normans do not intend to subdivide their parcel but neither do they want to diminish the value of their investment as a result of this ordinance. We recommend that the language of the ordinance be amended to read as follows: SECTION I. Lot Area and Coverage Calculation. In all districts the minimum lot area and maximum allowable lot coverage shall be calculated exclusive of the area of the graded and surfaced portion of any private lane, right-of-way, or vehicular access easement. The portion of this ordinance applying to the calculation of mini- mum lot areas shall not apply to lots created by law- ful subdivisions prior to the date this ordinance was adopted. (Proposed new language is underscored.) Medina City Council March 10, 1986 Page Two We believe that the addition of the language recommended in this ordinance will still accomplish the objective of the ordinance and of the City's comprehensive plan, i.e., to maintain the large lot and greenbelt character of the City. We see no point in subtracting from the lot area those portions of lanes or rights -of -way which are not actually required to be used for vehicular travel. This is particularly burdensome where such rights -of -way and easements were previously dedi- cated by the owners for the public good. We also believe that reference to "access easement" should be for vehicle access easements only and not pedestrian or utility easements. The City of Medina wants to en- courage pedestrian access, particularly to waterfront areas. To sub- tract pedestrian easement areas from a property owner's minimum lot size could encourage owners to build spite fences to cut off such pedestrian routes. Such an ordinance, if not qualified as we recommend, could also encourage Medina property owners to bring lawsuits to ex- tinguish existing access easements in order to save their parcels' value. Perhaps we are being overly cautious in recommending this amenda- tory language. The City may have intended to interpret the ordinance to exclude only the graded and surfaced portions of lanes, rights -of - way, and easements. The language is so broad as it now stands, how- ever, that we felt it necessary to recommend the above qualifications. The recommended language will also make the ordinance much easier to administer by avoiding the necessity of determining the rights and boundaries to various private and public easements. I am sure that it will clarify the situation for the Normans as well as for many other Medina citizens similarly situated. We endorse Medina's attempts to retain its unique character and believe that our recommended changes are wholly consistent with the City's overall objectives. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Sincerely, DAVIS, WRIGHT, TODD, RIESE & JONES � f sz Jo n E. Keegan JEK:pm cc: Don and Judith Norman