Loading...
16008 75TH PL W.pdfuza wO -J UO W 0 Le) w, LU to LL I LU O�tea. �w z 1=- F- O z w w S O', O L) Wj U- O �z U CD z t® Brian Comstock,1107 Daley Place, Edmonds (business at Sth and Main), agreed with Councilmember Haakenson's observation that the pilot program appeared to significantly open up parking spaces. He supported keeping the employee parking permit fee at a reasonable level and urged the Council to make this a permanent program. Mayor Fahey advised the fee is established based on the cost to process the permits. She closed the audience participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to the Council for deliberation COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO ENACT THE NO RE -PARKING IN THE SAME 100 BLOCK ORDINANCE ON A PERMANENT BASIS AND DIRECT STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY. CHANGES TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE. Council President Earling acknowledged the good intentions of this program and its efforts to solve parking problems. However, he was dissatisfied with micro -managing the system and urged the Parking Committee to address the larger problem of solving long-term downtown parking needs. ` MOTION CARRIED; COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING OPPOSED. Appeal- 6. APPEAL OF THE HEARING FXA2NPR'S DECISION REC R IN FILE NO V.96 119, TO Height _D_ENY- Tom' REOUrST FOR A HEI HT V RTAIITCF. OF AppRt•fY_ i1►rtAmrTX 420Gczm mn variance ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SIN F FAMTL Y RESIDEL°1(E WITH A AP-96-144 MAXEMIUM HEI =HT OF 7- .F.T AROV A't .R ACE ADF --- SUBJE .T PROUJM) I LOCA D AT 16008 75TH PLACE WEST IS WNED R 1z (AppgllantiApntWant Dr. Al Ansarl and Dr. Bato rl Modarress / Fite iv.:; w-9EM Mayor Fahey advised this appeal was withdrawn. It remained on the agenda because notices were published and mailed. Mayor Fahey declared a five minute recess. Appeal- 7. APPEAL OF TM -DECISION BY THE ARCEUUCTURAL DESI 11j BOARD TO DENY THE Two APPLICATION FILED UNDER F1T F NO ADR 96-131 T(l CONSTRUCT T�J�rO ADDITIONAL Additional P NG SPACES IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 1�6 4TH A �n'N*1F �S*^"' Spa' sg kUpellanVApplieant• Marvin Smith !File No AP 96 1481 AP-96-149 Councilmember Nordquist disclosed that his company is presently doing business with Mr. Smith's firm: c' City Attorney Snyder explained this is the Council's first closed record appeal —an administrative process in which the Council is limited to the record created by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). He pointed out there is no provisionvfor public comment and the transcript does not indicate any members of the public appeared to testify to the ADD; therefore, did not reserve an appeal right. He recommended the Council disregard any previous discussions regarding downtown parking. He noted ECDC Chapter IS was repealed and his review of the Transportation Element did not provide sufficient detail (Anderson vs. Issaquah Court of Appeals ruling) to consider the effect on downtown parking as part of this appeal. Remaining issues include whether the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and provisions of the ADD chapter that are referenced in the Design Guidelines. He reiterated any questions must be related to the record created by the ADB and cannot elicit new information not contained in the record. The Council may make a decision on the appeal or remand the matter back to the ADB. Mr. Smith is vested in the ordinances as they existed when he applied and his application must Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4,1997 Page 7 © ®' be considered based on those ordinances. He pointed out the ADB may need additional training on establishing a record and more detailed findings. Mr. Snyder pointed out Ms. Hyde's appeal letter indicates the City, as a property owner of interest, may z ! be in violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He explained RCW 42.36.090 provides that if a challenge to the quasi judicial body would destroy its quorum, the members may continue to participate and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine challenge would be without weight. v Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the staff report could be considered as information contained in the o, record. Mr. Snyder advised the staff report could be considered as long as it did not contain any new w i; information. Cn w U. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmembers had any disclosures to make. There were no other, disclosures. Mayor Fahey asked if there were any challenges to Councilmember Nordquist's participation. tL I Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith, indicated she challenged the entire Council as the property is l- adjacent to her client's property and City employees use the'on-street parking. She did not wish to waive any of those objections on an issue of appeal if this matter were to proceed to Superior Court. 1— O` Mayor Fahey stated there were no objections to Councilmember Nordquist's participation. v sn` a Associate Planner John Bissell, ADB Liaison, said on December 4, 1996, the ADB held a hearing on + Marvin Smith's application to add two parking stalls to his site on 4th Avenue North. The ADB = v considered the evidence and concluded the application was not in compliance with the standards of the " 1= Design Guidelines and requirements of the Landscape Ordinance and denied the application. z, Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the agenda memo was a summary of information contained in the iv-- record. Mr. Bissell answered, to the best of his knowledge, it was. o } z f Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith, 152 Third Avenue South, objected to any consideration of the narrative on the agenda memo recently issued by the Planning Department as it did not accurately reflect the ADB's decision at the hearing. She pointed out if the Council relied on the narrative, they would be relying on the City's version of what the evidence shows. The narrative also states the ADB f denied the application based on its failure to comply with the Architectural Guidelines and landscaping. She read the basis of the denial from the transcript, "I would like to make a motion, I would like to move :;.. that we deny 96-131 as submitted for the following reasons: that the.guidelines discourage parking in front of the building so That this is a noncornpliance; that there is a pedestrian hazard caused because of the increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay, and that's about it." She stressed there was no denial 0 based on the landscape buffer. a Ms. Hyde pointed out the initial staff report referenced Design Guidelines, Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance (requires small parking areas at the rear of buildings and the provision of pedestrian facilities) which has been repealed. Therefore, it was not a proper basis for consideration by the ADB. The staff report also referenced Section 20.10.070(3) of the Edmonds Community Development Code which is not the same section referenced in the new agenda memo —Section t ® 20.12.025 of the ECDC. Therefore, staff is urging the Council to deny the appeal on a different basis than was proposed to the ADB. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4,1997 Page 8 W F- t0 City Council Meeting 2/4/97 E: Agenda Item No 6 16010 73rd Place West Edmonds, WA 98026-4552 Tel/Fax (206) 743-5774 January 31,1996 Barbara Fahey Mayor, City of Edmonds Edmonds Civic Center Edmonds WA 98020 Dear Mayor Fahey: This letter is a letter of opinion regarding the Ansari appeal of the decision of the hearing examiner rejecting a request for a 12-foot height variance for a single-family residence in the lower Meadowdale area. As pointed out in letters and testimony from myself and others before the hearing examiner, view amenities from surrounding existing homes would be impacted ;, adversely by the granting of this request for variance. A number of homes constructed on very similar and even more difficult building sites have solved the steep -slope problem easily by placing the driveway and garage at near -street level and placing the living quarters on the water -view side at levels below the garage. I understand there will be no public input at the hearing of this appeal. Please be advised that there is very strong sentiment in the neighborhood for upholding of the standard height requirements which have been established in the city statutes and regulations for excellent reasons. At the time of the presentation of the request a before the hearing examiner, neighbors also pointed out misstatements on the part of the appellant and concluded that the request for a variance was based on issues of cost and convenience. 3 S incerely yours, I � obert A. Anderson to �r '4 i 2 Sp �t .s� ry z kif ft�t �PA'tom 4� I l Ij, n 29. 97 0 1 ry 2 PLdt A p t PZC JAN29ls��► 7anuary 29,1997 p� 2 �l v4matd�l WA 9g0?.Q v: o d We would like to wi*Amw our RppW film city Caunotl canaidm*m. We ivWnd to !- uj MVIN ow"plan and supply Again In *a n4At fuWm. z t-{ Z 01 Thank you far udgain in this matter. w w! � 2 Di � �� 3YlYWGIy► n - - o Drs Al N6od U. 0� Z Dr. HAW4 MO&MW 1 Z ,1 - t ,I Item #: ' EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL ,Yµ Agenda Memo cc g; Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For I nformation: -Jv Lo a Subject: APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION REGARDING FILE vi W; 3:! NO. V-96-119, TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 12-FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, w U. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 37-FEET g ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT Q 16008 75TH PLACE WEST AND IS ZONED RS-12. (APPELLANT/APPLICANT: U. DR. AL ANSARI AND DR. BATOUL MODARRESS / FILE NO. AP-96-144) sw ' z P Clearances: Department/Initials o w w! Agenda Time: Admin Svcs/Finance Community Svcs �E City Attorney Engineering c ) m{. o Agenda Date: February 4,1997 City Clerk Parks & o� , h_^t' Court PIannin""��}} Csy Exhibits Attached: Personnel Public Works u. 1. Letter from Fire Treatment Plant Drs. Ansari & Modarress zi police City Council ui v � Mayor p s" Reviewed by Council Finance z Committee: Community Services Publicsafety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: 10 Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: N/A Narrative: The applicantlappellants Dr. Ansari and Dr. Modarress have submitted a letter (see Exhibit 1) withdrawing their appeal. They are going to resolve their concerns and reapply at a later date. Recommended Action: N/A Council Action: 1:\Library\cc96144.doc v 1 Q 1 P 3a P O 1 ,^ c�,f iI Jq N�91 .997 � 7enm y 29, Y99"t T. U,{ a. A���rY►idc'l+'i�,�h w 1 _ ",ye!oUd9 UI J mmundh WA 980M tz—' cn U., MY. vb&h,. j U. N d wo would Ift to witixtmw mr &Had finm city Cousvg cmwwadod. We kmd to its W oust tdde plan end my Again in tha u Alum. z F, z �j Thank you fosE and stain in this tatter. ,l i CA, y' s w U. o Dr. Al Ahem: z Dr. BmW Modums O t Exhibit 1 2. • a �, a d p, ��{<� 1 ��•`�y �. _�� F, �� � ���� t r � S i i' y}rye }t� E� �'��. ��rv§ �� * � r z Z UJ cr- LU 0 (n UJ LU m -j F- (f) LL 0 LL) LL z F- r 0 z I-- LIJ LU cun 0- 0 H, toLU L) F- LL 0 .. Z' LU 0 rj z r"i D H z_ H z W D U 0 ca w LL ui a z T . ..... ...... t F� All J 1VAP-c November 27,1996 TO: Community Development Director FROM: Al Ansari and Batoul Modarress, Owners LOCATION: 16008 75th Place West CASE NO.: V96-119 SUBJECT: Appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner We, _ Al Ansari and Batoul Modarress, hereby wish to appeal the 21 November 1996 decision to deny our request for a height variance on the above property. The Hearing Examiner was Mr. Ron McConnell. We believe that the adverse decision was based on poor documentation and preparation by our architect as well as on her misrepresentation of some of the facts in the case. S' erely, Dr. Al Ansari Dr. Batoul Modarress CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 + MAYOR FAX {206} 771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER ¢I �Sr' isg" RECEIVED = z' D: g FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Nov Z 2 1996 OF THE HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPT, W CITY OF EDMONDS fn ! W S; +sn J F- w of APPLICANT: Al Ansari a CASE NO.: V 96-119 U. T d . ]LOCATION: 16008 75`h Place West = UJ ? APPLICATION: Variance to increase the maximum permitted building height from z �` 25-feet above average grade level to 37-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and � o 4)• o -. ott W W REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. w p w MAJOR ISSUES: z a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC Chapter 20.85.010 (VARIANCE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site j Development Standards). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Deny Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Ansari application was opened at 9:20 a.m., November 7, 1996, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:08 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. • incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan o a zi z w 0 cs 0 0 w S r U F- 0 z BEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Kirk Vinish, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report and recommended denial of the request. He noted that one option would be to relocate the garage and he discussed other options which the applicant could explore which would not require a 12 foot height variance. From the Applicant: Barbara Pickens, Architect, said: • She did not design the home, but was familiar with it. • The house would only be 12 rh to 18 feet above street level. She submitted Exhibit G to show the height of the proposed house above the road. • The structural engineer and the geotechnical engineer both agreed the site should not be dug into, but rather should be disturbed as little as possible due to the slide potential which exists in the Meadowdale area. • The house was designed to step down and stay with the natural contours of the site. • The height of the house stays within approximately 25 feet of the site as it steps down the hill. • In order to avoid cutting into the hill, the house was designed to rest on stilts. • The house will also be designed to have a jacking system to accommodate differential settlement on the site should it occur. A R. • Access to the street is difficult. The main entrance to the house will be at elevation 77' and the street is at approximately 88'. Therefore, a complicated driveway is necessary. • A bridge structure would need to be built if the house is moved further to the west. Therefore, if the house were to be located further to the west a variance would be needed to have a structure in the setback area. G'a • The dominant character of the neighborhood is two story homes and Exhibit H shows where all the two story homes in the area are located. • There is some fill on the site and the soils report (Exhibit J) is a compelling reasonz '} for the design proposed. r �a Al Ansari, Applicant, said: • There are a number of trees on the site which will be removed to allow for construction of the house. Therefore, views from neighboring properties will be improved. From the Community: Philip Ruggiero, Owner of Adjacent Property, said: • The fact that this property is hard to build on is not a surprise. • The house he is now constructing was designed with the height restriction in mind. • He had to excavate and construct a retaining wall at great expense. • He too used a geotechnical engineer. • There are options which can be considered in order to build a house on the Ansari site. The options may be difficult and may be expensive, but there is no reason for a variance. e This is not an unbuildable situation. • The proposed house will dwarf his house. There have been other houses in the area which were built with long driveways. Robert Anderson, neighbor, said: • It appears this house was not designed for this site, but was appropriated from somewhere else. • He believes approval of the requested variance would create an adverse impact on neighbors. • The neighbors will reap the benefit of tree removal with any house that goes on the site. Therefore, that should not be viewed as a special benefit and the house should meet the height requirements. • The depth of fill before native soil is reached is unknown. Therefore, an application for a 12 foot height variance is premature. Phyllis Wiggins, neighbor, said: • The DNS was misnomer which got her attention. N LU,i o: g JLU U& N o, W" W = 0UJ g:3 w= m d, sW Z Z O` W W: c� cn{. a 2 tWj:' _ z, w N, F- h Z MI A� . • The neighborhood while diverse is compatible and this proposal will be out of sync with the neighborhood. Kathleen Johnson, neighbor, said: • The house was not designed for this site. F • The design would result in a three story structure next to the public trail. • She thinks other houses which have been granted height variances were for less than 12 feet. Frank Bonipart,.neighbor, said: • He had to excavate to build his house and it was expensive. • This proposal will impact his view. • The Ansari site is not easy to build on, but neither was his site. Response from the Applicant: Barbara Pickens responded that: • She does not believe the proposed foundation is cheap, but she believed it will do the least environmental damage. Al Ansari responded that: • The house was designed for the site and the project architect was at the site many times. • The height issue is due to the way the City calculates height. CORRESPONDENCE: Philip Ruggiero wrote in Exhibit B: "I am presently constructing a single family resident at 16010 7P Place West, Edmonds, which is directly adjacent and south of the property where the proponent is requesting the variance. It is inconceivable to me that plans have been produced and submitted to the City for permit, knowing that the 25 foot height maximum is part of the city ordinance for building in this area. There is no logical reason why a variance should be approved based on the size and configuration of the lot in question. Surely there are many alternatives for designing a very nice single family residence on this lot without violating'the neighborhood height restriction. Id did it with substantial personal financial sacrifices because I have a great deal of respect for the theme and culture of the surrounding area and 1 believe anybody building on the west • The neighborhood while diverse is compatible and this proposal will be out of sync with the neighborhood. Kathleen Johnson, neighbor, said: • The house was not designed for this site. F • The design would result in a three story structure next to the public trail. • She thinks other houses which have been granted height variances were for less than 12 feet. Frank Bonipart,.neighbor, said: • He had to excavate to build his house and it was expensive. • This proposal will impact his view. • The Ansari site is not easy to build on, but neither was his site. Response from the Applicant: Barbara Pickens responded that: • She does not believe the proposed foundation is cheap, but she believed it will do the least environmental damage. Al Ansari responded that: • The house was designed for the site and the project architect was at the site many times. • The height issue is due to the way the City calculates height. CORRESPONDENCE: Philip Ruggiero wrote in Exhibit B: "I am presently constructing a single family resident at 16010 7P Place West, Edmonds, which is directly adjacent and south of the property where the proponent is requesting the variance. It is inconceivable to me that plans have been produced and submitted to the City for permit, knowing that the 25 foot height maximum is part of the city ordinance for building in this area. There is no logical reason why a variance should be approved based on the size and configuration of the lot in question. Surely there are many alternatives for designing a very nice single family residence on this lot without violating'the neighborhood height restriction. Id did it with substantial personal financial sacrifices because I have a great deal of respect for the theme and culture of the surrounding area and 1 believe anybody building on the west ? x, / Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 5 side of that street should be required to stay within the confines of the 25 foot maximum i height restriction. That's why these ordinances are in existence. It's only fair, it only makes Z 4i good sense. Lu. oc �': As concerned citizens, I feel we all have a responsibility to respect other people's view of environmental issues as they relate to the esthetics of an area and the possible blocking of o view properties, etc. To allow the construction of a "white elephant" would destroy the Cnn w; integrity and 'feel" of the neighborhood and would adversely impact surrounding vie s and J resale values. "—' of g As I mentioned earlier, this is not a case of property that is 'unbuildable' without some kind of variance. This is simply a complete disregard for the rules without regard to any other (na consideration and I feel strongly that this is wrong and should not be tolerated. " ZRobert and Joann Anderson wrote in Exhibit C: F- a w ,�„' "We strongly object to the determination of non -significance made by Jeffrey Wilson a: granting a variance of 12 feet above the allowable 25foot maximum height limitation for a single family residence at 16008 76`4 Place West in Meadowdale. It is impossible to tell without a surveyor's level the effective height impact of the decision, LL a' but it appears to us in the neighborhood that 37 feet from the average of four corners of a Z, building footprint at the east edge of that lot would extend well above the level of the street, v�� significantlyim actin m a negative way the northwesterly views ram the homes to the impacting g Y Y .f o ts- southeast on the eastside of 75`h Place West, on the east side of 74`h Place West within the Z Lorian Woods development and homes south of the Lorian Woods development. It would likewise very significantly damage the southwesterly views from homes northeast of the lot in question on the east side of 75`h Place West, north of North Meadowdale Road. Part of the object of the 25 foot height limitation is the protection of the amenity of view which is a determinant of both land values and the rights of pleasant enjoyment in any given --- situation. Further, a 37 foot height structure located on an already much higher lot, would Q monstrously dominate the houses to the north, creating a very unpleasant community ' r disparity. ; The view from this waterfront lot is totally unobstructed and would not improve no matter what height is allowed Therefore, there is no advantage to the property developer other than his/her own convenience in determination of preference of design. There is no hardship c� involved " Phyllis Wiggins wrote in Exhibit D: "The Determination ofNon-Significant I received struck me immediately as a misnomer.. to me it should more aptly have read "Determination of Great Significance "... I realize that Determination dealt entirely with environmental issues but the impact of this proposed dwelling would have Great Significance to the entire neighborhood Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 6 As a home owner, we were careful to check the possible codes and zoning that might impact our purchases, and at that time we learned of the 25 foot height restriction for future building across the street. I have to believe that Mr. Ansari also confirmed before purchase what rights and limitations applied to this building site. Either the house is inappropriate for this site or the property is wrong for the house he wants to build.. whichever has greater priority. Item 5 of the variance application asks, 'Will the portion of your proposal for which you seek a variance case a loss of property value, scenic view, or use in surrounding properties?' I find it hard to believe Mr. Ansari I can say with a straight face, and with integrity, that he honestly believes he can answer 'No'. Twenty-one feet above street level would have a major impact. In a neighborhood of diversity and compatibility, the proposed building would appear to me to be a glaring and conspicuous exception. I do hope you will suggest that Mr. Ansari find a more suitable building plan that would not require this variance. " Frank and Marion Bonipart wrote in Exhibit E: "We are concerned about the 12' height variance requested by the property owners at 16008 75'h Place West, Edmonds, WA. This is a significant addition to the height of a building and would definitely affect our view of the sound. All other houses in the area are in compliance with the height standard. Unless there is a significant hardship connected with the building site which would dictate the height variance we are opposed to the granting of the request. " FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Size: The total size of the subject property is 14,738 square feet. 2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped, surrounding development consists of single family dwellings (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). 3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential family with a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) Terrain: The subject property slopes from the east to west with the greatest slope closest to the west property line. The soils report submitted by the applicant (Exhibit J) reviews soil conditions on the site and provides several conclusions and recommendations. 5) Vegetation: Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 7 1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, and west and are currently zoned as single-family (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1). Properties to the east are zoned RS-20. 2) The adjacent properties to the east are currently developed as single- family homes. West of the property is the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and all remaining adjacent properties are undeveloped. B. EDMONDS COMKIMTY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLMNCE 1. a. Facts: 1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in a RS- 12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. 2) Except for the requested height variance, the existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for the RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the street and height setbacks. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.15B. I 80.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whefeby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). a. Facts: 1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. All variance criteria must be met before a variance can be granted. 2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify use or procedural requirements. 3) The applicant states in his declarations that steep slopes on the I property make construction of a driveway difficult, and that special circumstances exist because, "From the face of the proposed house to the centerline of the street there is a 27% slope. Site acces's'is difficult and further complicates the siting of a home." r, V Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 8 4) The applicant states that that two-story homes are typical for this area z of Edmonds and reducing a home to one-story with a daylight z �,, basement is inconsistent with other homes in the vicinity and therefore ~ UJi approval of their proposal is not a granting of a special privilege. J vj cs 5) The applicant has stated that the proposal is consistent with the "D" Cn o Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance (see also section of Cn �" Exhibit A for additional discussion of compliance with the CD U. Comprehensive Plan). - o� 6) The applicant states that the proposal is not detrimental in that the residence will be less than 16-feet above the street and neighbors to the U_ east are above the street therefore they will not be affected by the o " w! height variance. z 7) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum necessary in that > they are utilizing a flat roof, reduced the bulk of the structure and are LU LU! 2 m following the topography to the extent possible. =)o U CnE. 8) Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the n �'` Engineering Division. r LU w ; _ �: rl b. Conclusions: `—` Z' 1) Special Circumstances � z; The subject property Yhas steep slopes, which may exceed 27% in some o H places. Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from z the Engineering Division, The City prefers all other options to be explored before allowing a driveway to exceed 14%. The home's only street access is via 75th Place West, therefore, other access options do not exist. Some provision for locating a residence on the lot should be provided. One option the applicant could consider is relocation of the garage which could mitigate the need for additional height. Nevertheless, it appears that special circumstances exist due to } : topography. However, there was no basis found in the soils report to support the magnitude of the height variance requested. 0 2) Special Privilege a A special privilege would be demonstrated if this variance were to be granted in that no evidence was provided which documents the granting of any previous variance of this magnitude in the vicinity. 3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan ® In this case, approval of this variance would not be consistent with the provisions of ECDC Section 16.10.0003 which states in part: Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines, and other natural features. ' The Examiner believes that an applicant has the right to construct a r building which complies with the code requirements even if it impactsr $' ibtr 51d 3tq {! ft't «F.. u'.'li,vl Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 9 views from neighboring properties, however, views should be z considered and preserved when an applicant is asking for a variance i from the code. The proposed 12 foot height variance would result in g some impact to views from neighboring properties and from 75`s Place Vest and therefore, is not consistent with the intent of the above noted Ln 001 provision of the Code. LU 4) Not Detrimental rn U. As inferred above, it is believed that approval of a 12 foot height variance would impact views and therefore would be detrimental to J property or improvements in the vicinity. U. 9 5) Minimum Required Lu; The proposal does not appear to be the minimum required in that, as z the applicant notes in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A, a one-story of residence with a daylight basement could be constructed. Also, the w w applicant could relocate the garage and thereby create additional living o; space; he could reduce the height of the residence; or he could move N 0 -1_ the house further west and provide a full daylight basement effectively i allowing a two-story residence with a detached garage. LU u. p; C. TECHNICAL COMMIT TEE Zi 1. Review by City Departments f o a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments. z D. COMPREHENSIVE PIAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing 3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. fi (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available y to the City to influence the quality of housing far all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic l consideration, in accordance with the following policies: (2) Policy B.1. states, "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." (3) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. " (4) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments, s 4:C5s '#�+lwm �kM 29 zr ;7- 0i z W W M :D D LLp —z o� z MA Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is denied. Entered this 21st day of November, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial. decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. 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. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation 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 ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. F. ' t, 11 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-L19 Page 11 LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' EXHIBITS: The following exhibit were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, dated 10/30/96, with 4 attachments B. Letter from Philip Ruggiero, dated 11/6/96 C. Letter from Robert Anderson, dated 10/18/96 D. Letter from Phyllis Wiggins, dated 10/28/96 E. Letter from Frank and Marion Bonipart, dated I InI96 F. Map showing sites that have received height variances G. Drawing showing relationship of house to street H. Map with: Red dots = 2 story houses; green dots = Vacant lots I. Soils report letter, by Neil Twelker, dated 10/7/96 PARTIES of RECORD: Al Ansari 9304 OIympia View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Philip J. Ruggiero 6126 140`i' Court N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Phyllis Wiggins 16012 74`h Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Kathleen Johanson 7309 North Meadowdale Road Edmonds, WA 98026 Planning Division Engineering Division Barbara Pickens, AIA 9950 Lake Washington bled. N.E Bellevue, WA 98004 Robert A. and Joann Anderson 160 73rd Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Frank and Marion Bonipart 7429 North Meadowdale Road Edmonds, WA 98026 Jeanie Anderson 16727 7e Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Z s � Q =i J V' Ui J 1—; to tL wo LL Na. _UJ. Z 1— O' w trt o �iLuwuj u. 01 -' ZI U)' �1 o Z CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From: 4a Kirk J. V sh, AICP Project Planner Date: OCTOBER 30,1996 File: V-96-119 AL ANSARI Hearing Date, Time, And Place: November 7. 1996. At 9:00 AM, Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................2 A. Application.........................................................................:............................................2 B. Recommendations...........................................................................................................2 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................2 A. Site Description ........................ ....................2 B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance .................... } C. Technical Committee......................................................................................................4 0 D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC).........................................................................................4 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS................................................................................5 A. Request for Reconsideration...........................................................................................5 B. Appeals............................................................................................................................5 e® IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL...........................................................................................................5 r V. APPENDICES............................................................................................................................5 VI. PARTIES OF RECORD............................................................................................................6 V96-119.DOC I October 30,1996 / Statr ort Qk N ` © .i•d}. �.' f.T, r ,r.,. ` a.7. ff ... ® `> llvl. �n + S81 i S.iM P-f < �•A.i i ! 7 Al Atkad File No. V•96.119 Page 3 of 6 B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. a) Ent: (1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. (2) Except for the requested height variance, the existing development conforms to all u�= U' RS-12 requirements (see Attachment 4). O b) Concluslon: The proposal complies with the development standards for the RS-12 zone V) ut j as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the street and height setbacks. -j �`4. ,j LU 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance g ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). LL Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may O be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual tom- _ and unreasonable hardship (see Attachment 2). Z F— F- O a) Ear&- w w (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance p request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria c� rnl p include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the is proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the = v proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. LL O� (2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify, — Z; use or procedural requirements. t-a = (3) The applicant states in his declarations that steep slopes on the property make i- construction of a driveway difficult, and that special circumstances exist because, x Z "From the face of the proposed house to the centerline of the street there is a 27% slope. Site access is difficult and further complicates the siting of a home." (4) The applicant states that that two-story homes are typical for this area of Edmonds and reducing a home to one-story with a daylight basement is incongistent with other homes in the vicinity and therefore approval of their proposal 'is not a granting of a special privilege. (5) The applicant has stated that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan "} and zoning ordinance (see also section "D" of this report for additional discussion of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan). (6) The applicant states that the proposal is not detrimental in that the residence will be less than 16-feet above the street and neighbors to the east are above the street therefore they will not be affected by the height variance. (7) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum necessary in that they are utilizing a flat roof, reduced the bulk of the structure and are following the topography to the extent possible. ! (8) Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. e t , 1 � V96-119.DOC I October 30,1996 t SteMpott 15-y.ii IF M10 M Ansul File No. V-9&l 19 Page 4 of6 b) Conclusion (1) Spalall CircuMstancla The applicants Property has steep slopes, which may exceed 270/o in some places. Driveways may not exceed 140/o slope without approval from the Engineering Division. The City prefers all other options to be explored before allowing a driveway to exceed 14%. The homes only street access is via 75th Place West, therefore other access options do not exist. Some provision for locating a residence on the lot should be provided, one option the applicant could consider is relocation of the garage which could mitigate the need for additional height. Nevertheless, it appears that special circumstances exist due to topography, and therefore the applicant should be provided some relief from the height requirements of the ECDC. (2) Spaiall Privilege It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would also qualify for some type of height variance (see Attachment 2). (3) &Aingy Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed height variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see Attachment 2). (4) Not Detrimental As proposed approval of the street setback variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare in that other properties in the immediate vicinity do not appear to be adversely affected by the proposal. (5) Minimum EWqu*red The proposal does not appear to be the minimum required in that, as the applicant notes, a one-story residence with a daylight basement could be constructed or. Alternatively, the applicant could consider relocating the garage and thereby creating additional living space and reducing the height of the residence or excavating further to provide for a two-story residence within the existing height limitation or moving the house further west and proving a full daylight basement effectively giving the applicant a two-story residence. C. Technical Committee 1. Review by City Departments J. a) Fad: No comments were submitted by other departments. A Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) Fad: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Eack: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section 8 states as a goal of the City that: "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 housingfor all citizens should 'be V, - V96-119DOC /October 30,1996 St#trl"'t consideration in accordance with the following policies. " (2) Policy B.l. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design z �; and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to z�.. harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and f— Lui desireability." cc M LU < =i (3) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes V UQ! by new Construction or additions to existing structures. " d; w (4) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, 'Stable property values must not be LU -J 1S— _ threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. " wO b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies g of the City for the development of residential property in the City. to a,' III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS t=. _ The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any z H person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department r - O'for further procedural information. Z Ni w w: o A. Request for Reconsideration U wi. a Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial = Udecision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or u~ }"! presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the Z subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific V references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of F _ application being reviewed. O z B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation 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 ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, e substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' V. APPENDICES t ®, Attachments l through 4 are attached. 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Applicant declarations 3. Application 4. Site Plan and Elevations V96-119.DOC / October 30,1996 / Staff Report hri yyu� / © IM7�n �a ri +t z y'u`t§ t?�lxiy" .J. + F`�� Ott '..�F ' { t} Sr x i aid f ofu. ws'"„j-a AIR 4"t£ 7a �.n•'J; 7t? �+ : tlr �'e�_st., F VY`• {li'73iG r hrlx an ti r.i.4+1�1�rs i5 as 54 J,4 jj+( t a v�;�yi s t aa'+ ,� �dEr'2,tfr p. kiZ.�... �.f.,y..: 1.t ..».f:... .i.• +�, ... Me No. V-96-119 Page 6 of6 VI. PARTIES OF RECORD FZ i Applicant Ul Planning Division Engineering Division James & Martine Allen a} W to U. Wto Q U. 4 1-- ai z ai 1— o Z W W - O� 1w . T CWj ` te. ZI ui �! hh 4 Z x 4 r I l s V96.119.DOC I October 30 19961 Sreff Report € �' DECLARATION REQUE ` FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE Page 1 of 2 September 20,1996 OWNER: AL ANSARI SITE ADDRESS: 16008 75th Place W., Edmonds, WA 98020 z Is VARIANCE REQUEST: A 12-FOOT VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION Height Calculation: NW CORNER 56 cc NE 74 -1 o SW 58 N 0 SE 70 w LU = -' F- TOTAL 258 DIVIDE BY 4: 0 . AVERAGE GRADE 64.5 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 25 PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT 37 U- a 1( MAX. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 89.5 Ln a PROPOSED MAX. ELEVATION 101.5 1'-- u' z_ tom- APPLICATION DECLARATIONS 1- O w w 1. SPECIAL. CIRCUMSTANCES: The site for this home has a slope from the front to the rear of the site o which has made it impossible to design the home to stay within the height restriction and satisfy the U cn home owners requirements. The site has a 25% slope down the center of the site. From the face of 0-- our proposed house to the centerline of the street there is a 27% slope. Site access is difficult and W : further complicates the siting of the home. Access to the site is from the street above only. x v 0 2. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE: Most homes in the metropolitan region are two-story homes. If we were to z comply with the height restriction, we would be allowed to build a main floor and a very limited daylight v ( basement. The upper floor living area would not be allowed. To provide for adequate living area, it N- � was decided to build an upper floor that would house the bedrooms. If you examine the cross section z of the home, you will see that the Architect has tried to reduce the height and to follow the slope of the site. The design of the .home is essentially a split level home: • on the uphill section there is a main floor and an upper floor on the lower part of the site there is a daylight basement and a section of the main floor. t The lower floor or basement is the garage of the home. To reduce the height of the home, the upper i part of the house has a flat roof. The owners have worked to reduce the bulk of the home and would prefer to have the bedrooms on the upper floor. This is a normal arrangement for the region. AQowing them to build this two-story home that slopes down the hillside does not constitute a speciaE privilege. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: In the comprehensive plan the lot is designated to be a single-family 0 home lot and the owners propose to use it as such. 4. ZONING ORDINANCE: The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to regulate land use, the bulk of structures and to create appropriate uses adjacent to each other. This single-family home is proposed to be built in a single family neighborhood. The elevation of the home from the street will be less than 25 feet tali. On both the north and south property lines, the side yards, the home is set back more than the minimum. This will create larger corridors to the water view for passing motorist and Q pedestrians. Measuring the length of the home and studying the 62-foot side elevations of the home, there is only a small wedge that exceeds 25 feet In height. That is a triangle that has the horizontal leg 32 feet long and goes from 0 to 9 feet tall. The architect has worked with the topography of the site to slope the home to match the site. It Is only due to the impact of the two low comers on this sloping site that makes it necessary for the owners to seek a variance. ATTACHMENT 2 File No. V-96-119 ' e 11111111> .. . 0 c® ®ECLARATION RE%'IUE� FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE Page 2 of 2 September 20, 1996 SITE ADDRESS: 16008 75th Place W., Edmonds WA 98020 6. NOT DEMMENTAI_: This proposal will not adversely effect the neighbors on any side of the site. As mentioned earlier, the front of the house Is less than 25 feet above the front property One and less than 16 feet above the street edge. This should have the least Impact possible on the uphill neighbors. The neighbors to the north and south will not be adversely effected by the height of this home, their views are all to the west. The home Is set back from the side property tines more than required. This should relieve any effects of the short section of home that is higher than the 25 foot limit. 6. MINIMUM VARIANCE: To construct this home, we will need a twelve -foot variance from the height restriction. The rule that only allows 25 feet above the average grade will limit construction on this site . to a one-story home with a partial "daylight' basement. To reduce the height, the owners have elected to build a flat roof home. They have minimized their expectations and reduced the size of the home to accommodate the sloping lot and to minimize the bulk of the home. To make this home a shorter home, would reduce the building to a daylight rambler, which is not In keeping with the standards for home design commonly used throughout the area. Given the site's slope, it is necessary to request this height restriction. If this site were flat, the home's design would have fit within the height restriction. PREPARED BY: Barbara Pickens, Architect, AIA 451-1161