17110 74TH AVE W.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS, BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
260 ST ENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
t
JUN 19 1996
UEPT.
PLAN10W
RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION
CASE NO. V-96-47
(DRUCKER, ET AL)
APPLICANTS: Robert Drucker, et al
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. On June 4, 1996, the City received a letter from the applicant who requested
reconsideration of my decision dated May 31, 1996 (Reconsideration Exhibit A).
The applicant's letter requested that I reconsider my denial of the requested four
(4) foot height variance.
B. The presentation boards submitted by the applicanes architect at the hearing
(Exhibit D of the original Hearing Examiner Report on this case) showt the
following:
Proposed House
on Northern
portion of lot
Similar House
on Southern
12ortion of lot
Elevation of Top of Garage 311'6" 311'4 1h"
Elevation of Top of House 307' 31 V4 W'
Elevation Allowed by Zoning Code 308' 311'4 1h"
C. The presentation boards submitted by the applicant's architect clearly show that
the applicant can build essentially the same house as he is proposing on the
northwest portion of the lot, except that it would be on the southern portion of
the lot and it would have a reverse floor plan. Most importantly, if the house
were to be built on the southern portion of the site as depicted on the
presentation boards, the house could be built without the need for a variance.
D. If the house were located -i the southern portion of the lot (as shown as an
alternative on the presentzi ion boards), it would result in a structure where the
top of the house would be 4' 4 1h" higher and the top of the attached garage
would be 1 IN' lower than the proposed structure on the northwestern portion of
the site.
Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
Reconliffiration of Decision/Drucker
Case No. V-96-47
Page 2
A house on the northwestern portion of the site may have slightly less impact on
views from neighboring.properties than if it were to be built according to code on
the southern portion of the lot. However, the application clearly does not meet
all of the criteria necessary to qualify for a variance.
In this case, the application does not meet the test for special circumstances.
ECDC 20.85.010A reads:
That, because of 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.
1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property, public necessity as ofpublic structures and
uses as setforth in section 17.00.030 and environmentalfaciors such as
vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats.
2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon anyfactor
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 secure a scenic view, the ability to
make more profitable use of the property, nor anyfactor resultingfrom
the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property.
While a small portion of the property is steep, there is ample room on the
southern portion of the propei ty to build a house (as large as the one proposed
by the applicant) without the need for a variance. The fact that the applicant
would rather locate the house on the steep portion of the site does not qualify ass
a special circumstance.
The presentation boards also showed that the house and garage could be built on
the northwestern portion of the site without the need for a variance if the
applicant would be willing to reduce the roof pitch on the garage. Again, the
special circumstance needs to be based on issues related to the property, not
based on the desires of the applicant.
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.
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiker decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along 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 Med with the Community
Development Director within ten (10) worldng days after the date of the decision being appealed.
RECONSEDERATION EXHIBM
' ond rificin
Ri6c'
d Deddqn�d
Case
Page 4
OF
44'
r
SAhdaR N omp
K�ii&DianheAiitir6f.'-.:W..and"�hft'.;Patdt
tects
3 �,�72nd SL�SW
-7305: 172 d St., SW
S'" ttl"tV, 9810Z
ea c, A
500 U S ''S
Won t � wid
nas, WA 98026
hdsVA 98026
900,
Sekde WA 98101
Mws :,Harry.. Norton
Eve, yn 'i�� g oni-
ision,
Phmning Divi i i
Pub Divigion
��Ikl"Mndfts`W,.-
SthfiMt:
Di
FAigineering ivision
Niblic Wofics Divbidn:
-WA-98026
1221 CL SE
Fire Depariinent
MiU Creekt WA
98012
rto
0 u n
d*
7405 l7r. ,S.W.
Edm6n&,' WA 98026
WN
V.,
** COUNT
# 3
*** SEND ***
NO
REMOT STATION I.D.
I START TIME
DURATION
#PAGES
COMMENT
11
206 889 0730
1 6- 5-96 12:24PM
2-33'
3
SANDALL NORRIE ARCHITECTS,. 500 Union Street suite 920 Seattle, Wav lon 98101 206.343.9538
Mr. Ron McConnell
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
250 5th Avenue North P4 19
,9
,6
Edmonds, Washington 98020
1 June 1996
Dear Mr. McConnell;
Please reconsider your denial of my variance request to exceed the height limit of a
residence to be built for my clients at 17110-74th Avenue West. My reading of your decision
suggests that you rejected some of the evidence I presented at the May 16th hearing. I
maintain that a careful reconsideration of this evidence will result in a ruling more satisfactory
to the neighborhood, my clients, the City, and the intent of the zoning law.
Your description of our proposal on page 3 of your decision, and the findings of facts that
follow, repeats the erroneous assertion of the Staff Advisory Report that the site slope is "a
fairly consistent 18-20%." During the hearing of 16 May I presented a survey, prepared by a
registered surveyor, that demonstrates that this is clearly not the case. A visit to the subject
property, though made difficult by the spring growth of blackberries, would show plainly an
area of 32% slope which, unfortunately, will coincide with our construction. Your assertion
on page 5 that adjacent properties have been hampered by steeper slopes neglects to
consider that these slopes, while perhaps steeper (and I have seen no evidence to support
this assertion) are consistent in slope. The subject property is unique in that its smay area of
steep slope is an aberration on this site, and is a special condition
Your conclusion number 5, on page 6 of your decision, asserts that the proposed residence
is "extremely large", and the extra space over the garage does not meet the criteria of
necessity inherent in the request fora minimum variance. This judgement repeats verbatim a
statement that appears in the Staff Advisory Report, a statement that was made with no
knowledge of the plans or actual size of the house, nor of the needs of my clients or the
composition of their family. Your assertion that the proposed house "...appears... larger than
many of the other houses in the neighborhood" is presented without evidence. RS-20
zoning permits lot coverage of 35%. On this property of 29,750 square feet, a single -level
home of 10,412.5 square feet could be legally erected. My clients' two-story, 5000 square
foot home i's not "extremely large" ; in fact the space they require could be provided on a
single level in a far more intrusive manner.
My clients have retained me to design a house suitable for their needs and the needs of their
family, while suiting the unique nature of the land they own and meeting the zoning and code
restrictions of the community they have chosen to join. My task, as their architect, is to do
their bidding. In addition, I am legally sworn to uphold the laws of this State. It is my
conviction that my responsibility extends further, to encompass not only a respect for the
conditions nature has imposed on this site, but also a regard for the civil discourse of my work
in its community. Most of the house I proposed during the 16 May hearing was 7-112 feet
4
�Q= than could be bL �`;'Iqgally on the south end of the, site. Even the garage, ff built per this
varlancei. would, be 3 feet /g=, th
an would occur without a varlance on th6 south and of the
sfte.�.; The Ioc6tJ
on and'arrangernent I Intend are not the work of an arrogant a hitectand an
inconsiderate neighbor, but rather Were chosen in d rence to rc
efe the site and the neighbors.
I ma,intal
h that if my request for a variance is,denled, the unusual and unreasonabl' hardship,
a
Will bq�suffered not byrny clients, but by their neighbors and the land:thGY occupy. Imaintain
that a special circumstance does exist, not only in the topograph I y of the site, bufaiso in the
willingness of my. client And, myself to incur
expense and inconvenience to do what is best for
the neigh , borhood. I respectfully submit that no other house in the neighborhood
demonstrates, this concern for theintent as well as the� letter of the zoning laws. Strict
adherence to the zoning laws will result, in a house 'on this site reaching a uniform height of
314'-6" sifting atop the land- rather than deferentially nestled down in it. Strict adherence to
Ahe zoning, laws will, In this special case, violate the intent of the law, which I believe Is to be a
good neighbor, and to treat the land with care and respect.
Please reconsider your decision.
Sincerely,
Robert Drucker
Project Architect
SANDALL NORRIE ARCHITECTS
ref. Case No. V-96-47
cc:, Ken & Diane Astrof Mr. and Mrs. Patera Mavis & Harry Norton
7311 172nd St. SW 7305 172nd St. SW 7321 172nd St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
Evelyn Arrigoni-Schmidt Robert Burton
1221 142nd dt. 8E: 7405 172hd St. SW
6t Rlv
Mill Creek, WA 98012 Edmonds, WA 98020 City of Edmonds
220 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 * (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 11��c -
HEARING EXAMINER
'C'St. j?'q, I I
'q
P44&vj, 'go
FINDINGSt CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Robert Drucker and Sandall Norrie Architects as agents for Steve
and Margaret Lee
CASE NO.:
LOCATION:
APPLICATION:
REVIEW PROCESS:
MAJOR ISSUES:
V-96-47
17110 74th Ave. W (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
A variance to increase the maximum allowed height from 25 feet to
29 feet for a new single family residence (see Exhibit A,
Attachments 2-4).
Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMMY RESIDENTIAL - Site
Development Standards).
b. Cornpliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Deny
Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny
PUBLICHEARING:
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 Drucker, et. al. application was opened at 9:00 am., May 16, 1996, in the Plaza
Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:20 am. 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
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-96-47
Page 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Stephen Bullock, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report (Exhibit A) and
recommended denial of the application. He noted the slope on the subject site is typical
for the surrounding area. He said some of the properties in the area even have steeper
slopes and no variances have been granted.
From the Applicant:
Robert Drucker, agent for the owner, submitted a set of architectural drawings into the
record and then used them to make his case (see Exhibit D). He said that:
In the northwest comer of the lot (where the house is proposed to be located) the
grades are steeper than elsewhere on the lot.
The special circumstance in this case is the peculiar comer of the site which is
steeper than the rest of the property.
If the variance is granted, the mass of the house will actually be lower on the site
and will have less view impact.
Approval of the variance will not be detrimental to adjacent properties because
there will be actually less view impact than if the house is built to code on the
south side of the lot.
From the Community:
No one from the general public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the subject request.
EN COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the written comments received from the owners of five nearby
properties. (See Exhibit A, Attachments 5, 6, 7 and 8 and Exhibit B).
* There are no special circumstances present. The lot is no steeper than adjacent lots.
9 If a Variance is granted, the applicant would receive a special privilege as all of the
other houses in Eagles Crest have complied with the height requirements.
* A beautiful house could be built on the site without a height variance.
9 The subject property is one of the more desirable properties in the area as it seems to
be relatively level which will allow for more building options than some of the other
lots in the area.
Hearing Exarrdw Decision
Case No. V-96-47
Page 3
DESCRWnON OF PROPOSAL
I located at 17110 74th Avenue West. The
The applicant is the owner, ol a vacant ot
subject property slopes down from the east to the west at a fairly consistent 18-20% slope.
Because of the slope of the proper� and the method of calculating the average grade the
applicant feels that a variance for Wight is required and justified.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU91ONS
A. SITE DESCRIMON
1. Site Development An4 Zoning:
a. Ea
1) &w. The subjec eet in area,
t property is approximately 29,750 square f
-feet of
and is roughly! rectangular in shape with approximately 160
street frontage long the 74th Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachment
4).
2) Land Ug lb� subject property is currently vacant.
3) &ni The zoning of the subject property is Residential Single-
-lots (RS-20).(see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
Family - 20,006 sq. ft.
Single -Family homes are a permitted primary use in this zone.
4) Tenrain -and Yk tation: The subject property slopes. down to the
gL
west with a gr.�de of approximately 18-20%. The slopes are covered
with blackberri�s and grasses.
2. Neighboring Developilnent And Zoning:
a. Eact. The ad
jacer�t properties to the north, south, west and cast are
currently zoned under the same RS-20 zone (see Exhibit A, Attachments
1). These properties are also developed with single-family homes.
B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLUNCE
1. Compliance with RS- 20 Zoning Standards
a. Facts:
1) The ftmdarnent� site development standards pertaining to Residential
development ir� a RS-20 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030.
These include t I he following for creating a lot:
a) Minimum Lot size: 20,000 square feet
b) Minimum I�ot width: 100feet
and the foll g for locating structures:
04
a) Street Setb k: 25 feet
b) Rear Setba.-k: 25 feet.
c) Side Setba�k total of 35 feet with a minimum of 10 feet on cithor side
d) Maximum eight: 25 feet,
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-96-47
Page 4
e) Lot Coverage: 35%
2) The existing lot conforms to all the dimensional requirements for lots in
the RS-20 zone.
to all the
3) The location of the proposed house appears to conform
requirements of the RS-20 zone for setbacks.
No retaining walls over Meet in height as measured from original
grade will be allowed in a setback area unless a variance is granted. It
is unclear whether or not a retaining wall over Meet in height is
proposed along the south edge of the driveway.
4) The ridge of the second story located over the garage is the portion of
the house that would extend above the maximum permitted height. It
appears that this ridge would extend Meet above the maxirnum
-f
permitted height of 25 eet above average grade (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 4).
b. Conclusion;
1) Except for the requested height variance, it appears that the applicant is
proposing to build a structure which conforms to the RS-20
development standards for locating structures on a lot.
2. Compliance with requirement for a Vadance
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). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the
mechanism whereby 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, Attachments 3).
a. Eact:
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.
2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be
used to modify use or procedural requirements.
3) The applicants declarations state the following for the six variance
criteria (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3):
i) The steep slope and method of calculating average grade combine
to create the special circumstances that would, require construction
of a house with a ridge that was only 8 feet above the grade along
74th Ave. W.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-96-47
Page 5
ii) The proposed house would be shnilar to homes built on adjacent
lots
iii) The single f1amily development is consistent with the "Single Family
Large LoV designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
iv) The Single Family development is consistent with the RS-20 zoning
designation.
v) The proposed height variance would not be injurious to adjacent
properties in that the properties to the east are a significant ways up
the hill.
vi) The proposed variance is the minimurn necessary in that a 15%
driveway grade is the maximm allowed by the engineering
department and that grade has been used to establish the finished
floor level for the house.
4) The proposed variance would be for the ridgeline and roof of the space
above the garage. This portion of the house extends just over 1/3 the
length of the building (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
b. Conclusions
1) gggli:al Circumstances
When calculating the maximum height a building may achieve, the
ECDC is very specific in describing the method used to determine that
maximum height. First, the smallest rectangle that encloses the entire
structure must be drawn. This is done for each detached structure.
The average of the existing grade at the four comers of that rectangle is
the baseline from which the maximum height is derived. When
corner(s) of the rectangle lie in low spots and reduce the maximum
height allowed, a 'special circumstances' argument may exist.
In this case, the subject lot slopes fairly consistently from east to West
at about 18-20%. There are properties in the immediate area that have
steeper slopes that have been developed with single family residences
and no height variance was granted. No height variances have been
granted for any properties within 500-feet of the subject property.
2) SUMial Privilege
Although the applicant is proposing a house that may be similar in
value to other homes in the area, the fact that no variances for height
have been granted in the immediate area and the special circumstances
do not appear significant enough to wan -ant a variance for height.
Therefore, approval of this request would constitute a grant of special
privilege.
3) Zoning Code and the ComgMhensive Plan
Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued
development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the
Zoning Code and the Compreh�nsive Plan designation of the site.
AV�
Hearing Exanriner Decision
Case No. V-96-47
Page 6
4) Not Detrimental
Because adjacent properties are significantly higher than the subject
property, it does not appear that the proposed variance would be
injurious to surrounding properties by blocldng views, or in any other
way. In fact, the proposal would actually have a slightly smaller impact
on views from neighboring properties than if a house were to be built to
code on the southern portions of the lot.
5) MiniMurn Required
1he applicant has limited the amount of the building which projects
71b
above the maximum height to about 113 the length of the building. e
declarations indicate that a 4-foot variance is required in this area, but
their drawings show the building only 3-feet above the maximum
-f
height. It would appear that 3 eet would be the minimum necessary, if
necessary at all. 'Me house is extremely large and the extra space
above the garage does not appear to be a necessity. 'Merefore, it is
believed that the request does not represent the minimum variance
required to allow the applicant similar rights enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. In fact, it appears that
the proposed house, without the extra space above the garage, would
be larger than many of the other houses in the neighborhood.
C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a. Eact: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Low
Density Residential.
b. Qo_nclusion.* The proposed project is consistent with the Low Density
Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
D. TECHNICAL COMMUTEE
1. Review by City Departments
a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a height variance is denied.
Entered this 31st day of May, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Exarniner
under Chapter 2 100 e Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-96-47
Page 7
RECONSIDERATION 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 RECONSEDERATION:
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.
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 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.
EXHEBr]rS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report with attachments
B. Memo from Robert Burton, dated 5/9/96
C. Photos of the site
D. Architects presentation boards
PARTEES OF RECORD
Robert Drucker Sandall Norrie Architects Ken & Dianne Astrof Mr. and Mrs. Patera
3130 Fuhrman Ave E 500 Union St. Suite 900 7311 172nd St. SW 7305 172nd St. SW
Seattle, WA 98102 Seattle, WA 98101 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
Mavis & Harry Norton Evelyn Arrigoni-Schmidt Planning Division Parks Division
7321 172nd St. SW 1221 142nd Ct. SE Engineering Division Public Works Division
Edmonds, WA 98026 Mill Creek, WA 98012 Fire Department
Robert Burton
7405 17Vd S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
May 13 1 996
To: Planning Department
City of Edmonds 1)
4
250 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
From: Bill & carol wood
17020 73rd Place Wec!4-
Edmonds
Re: File No. V-96-47
Dear Sir or Madam:
We are opposed to the requested variance for several reasons.
The lots in this part of Edmonds are view lots and any request for a
height variance must therefor be supported by a demonstrated need,
since someone's view, in some direction, is going to be diminished.
In the absence of demonstrated need, the Planning Department should
consider that the requested variance is based on convenience only. We
do not think convenience is a sufficient reason to justify diminishing
anyone's view.
If the variance were to be granted, such a step would encourage
others to believe that they also could build higher than the
applicable limits, and would use the grant of this requested variance
as support for the grant of further variances related to additional
heights of structures.
The lot in question is a large lot and slopes gently to the west.
This lot therefore does not present an unusual or difficult building
site. A house design with a view should be no problem without any
height variance.
our own view would not be impacted by the granting of a height
variance for this house; however, several of our neighbors would be
impacted and would lose a portion of their existing view. That is not
fair to these neighbors who purchased and built their homes expecting
the height of homes around them to be uniformly regulated by the City
of Edmonds.
Thank you for your consideration.
4,
te A.
NA
TO: Jeff Wilson
Planning Supervisor
City of Edmonds
250 5th Ave N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
FR: Robert N. Burton
7405 172 SW
Edmonds, WA 98026 7435073
RE: Height restriction variation request. Ref - RCW 197-11-970
Date: 5/9/96
This letter is in response to the notice sent to me regarding a
request by Robert Drucker to construct a single family residence at 17111
74th Ave. W. that would involve a height variance from the required 25
feet to 29 feet.
I am opposed to this request because:
• There i s a vacant lot( #10 Braemar Dr.) i n f ront of my home that
eventuallywill have a house built on it and if this variance is allowed
it could set a precedent that might cause problems in the future.
• What i s the point of having this requirement i f exceptions are
allowed? Why do I have to defend an ordinance already in use?
• If others have managed to comply with the ordinance, it would seem
reasonable to expect Mr. Drucker to comply also. Does he really need
four extra feet of head space? Does he play basketball for the NBA?
Does he practice pole vaulting in his family room? Does he have a pet
giraffe?
T"WiSn Mr. UruCKer all the oest in lilb tmdeavors to construct a new
home, however, certainly he can design one that will meet the city
requirements. Since he evidently will be a new neighbor it would seem
reasonable that he would want to enter the neighborhood without creating
enemies even before the spade -turning ceremony. After all, he might
want to borrow my spade.
And now for the quiz:
List five good reasons why this variance should be granted.
,(compare, contrast, cite examples, be brief)
Y _^ A I
EDMONDSHEARINGEXAMINER
-MEETING
MAY:16� 1996AT�9-04.
:650 Wim Str�it:
CITY OF EDMONDS
2�O 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS,WA "020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS� AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO: Ron M onnell, He 'ng Examiner
From:
"StephA-F. Bullocir-
Project Planner
Date: MAY 9,1996
File: V-96-47
Hearing Date, Time, And Place: Mgy 16,1996, At 9:00 AM,
Plaza Room - Edmonds Library
650 Main Street
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION ........................... I ............................................................................................
I
A. Application .................................................................................................................................................
I
B. Description of Proposal ..............................................................................................................................
2
C. Recommendations .....................
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................
2
A. Site Description ........................................................................ ; .................................................................
2
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance ...............................................................
2
C. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) .....................................................................................................................
5
D. Technical Committee ..................................................................................................................................
5
III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ...............................................................................
5
A. Request for Reconsideration .......................................................................................................................
5
B. Appeals .......................................................................................................................................................
5
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ..........................................................................................................
5
V. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................
6
VI. PARTIES OF RECORD ................................. I ...........................................................................
6
Robert Drucker
File No. V-96-47
Page 2 of 6
4. ReviewProcess: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public heanng and, makes final
decision.
5. Maior Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code. (ECDC) Section 16.20.030
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85
(VARIANCES).
B. Description of Proposal
The applicant is the owner of a vacant lot located at 17110 74th Avenue West. The subject
property slopes down from the east to the west at a fairly consistent 18-20% slope. Because of the
slope of the property and the method of calculating the average grade the applicant feels that a
variance for height is required and justified.
C. Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend Denial of
this application.
H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is approximately 29,750 square feet in area, and is
roughly rectangular in shape with approximately 160-feet of street frontage along the
74th Avenue West (see Attachment 4).
(2) Land Use: The subject property is currently vacant.
(3) Zonin : The zoning of the subject property is Residential Single -Family - 20,000 sq.
ft. lots (RS-20) (see Attachment 1). Single -Family homes are a permitted primary
use in this zone.
(4) Terrain and Veaetation: The subject property slopes down to the west with a grade
of approximately 18-20%. ne slopes are covered with blackberries and grasses.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) 'Fact: The adjacent properties to the north, south, west and east are currently zoned
under the same RS-20 zone (see Attachments 1). These properties are also developed
with single-family homes.
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Compliance with RS-20 Zoning Standards
C/
Robert Drucker
File No. V-96-47
Page 3,of 6
b)., Minimum Lot width. 100 feet
and the following for locating structures:
a) Street Setback: 25 feet
b) Rear Setback: 25 feet
c) Side Setbacks: a total of 35 feet with a minimum of 10 feet on'either side
d) Maximum Height: 25 feet
e) Lot Coverage: 35%
(2) The existing lot conforms to all the dimensional requirements for lots in the RS-20
zone.
(3) The location of the proposed house appears to conform to all the requirements of the
RS-20 zone for setbacks.
No retaining walls over 3-feet in height as measured from original grade will be
allowed in a setback area unless a variance is granted. It is unclear whether or not a
retaining wall over 3-feet in height is proposed along the south edge of the driveway.
(4) The ridge of the second story located over the garage is the portion of the house that
would extend above the maximum permitted height. It appears that this ridge would
extend 3-feet above the maximum permitted height of 25-feet above average grade
(see Attachment 4).
b) Conclusion:
(I) Except for the requested height variance, it appears that the applicant is proposing to
build a structure which conforms to the RS-20 development standards for locating
structures on a lot.
2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance
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).
Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby 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 Attachments 3).
a) Fact:
(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.
(2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify
use or procedural requirements.
(3) The applicants declarations state the following for the six variance criteria (see
Attachments 3):
i) The steep slope and method of calculating average grade combine to create the
special circumstances that would require construction of a house with a ridge
that was only 8 feet above the grade along 74th Ave. W.
ii) The proposed house would be similar to homes built on adjacent lots
iii) The single family development is consistent with the "Single Family - Large.
Lot" designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
'n
VW 047,DOC /May 9,19961 Staff Repo
Robert Drucker
File No. V-96-47
Page 4 of 6
iv) The Single Family development is consistent with the RS-10, zoning designation.
v) The proposed height variance would not be injurious to adjacent properties in
that the properties to the east are a significant ways up the hill.
vi) The proposed variance is the minimum necessary in that a 15% driveway grade
is the maximum allowed by the engineering department and that grade has been
used to establish the finished floor level for the house.
(4) The proposed variance would be for the ridgeline and roof of the space above the
garage. This portion of the house extends just over 1/3 the length of the building (see
Attachment 4).
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances
When calculating the maximum height a building may achieve, the ECDC is very
specific in describing the method used to determine that maximum height. First, the
smallest rectangle that encloses the entire structure must be drawn. This is done for
each detached structure. The average of the existing grade at the four comers of that
rectangle is the baseline from which the maximum height is derived. When comer(s)
pe
of the rectangle lie in low spots and reduce the maximum height allowed, a s cial
circumstances' argument may exist.
In this case, the subject lot slopes fairly consistently from east to west at about 18-
20%. There are properties in the immediate area that have steeper slopes that have
been developed with single family residences and no height variance was granted.
No height variances have been granted for any properties within 500-feet of the
subject property.
(2) SRecial Privilege
Although the applicant is proposing a house that may be similar in value to other
homes in the area, the fact that no variances for height have been granted in the
immediate area and the special circumstances do not appear significant enough to
war -rant a variance for height. Therefore, approval of this request would constitutue a
grant of special privilege.
(3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
Approval of the proposed 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.
(4) Not Detrimental
Because adjacent properties are significantly higher than the subject property, it does
not appear that the proposed variance would be injurious to surrounding properties
by blocking views, or in any other way.
(5) Minimum Reguired
The applicant has limited the amount of the building which projects above the
maximum height to about 1/3 the length of the building. The declarations indicate
that a 4-foot variance is required in this area, but their drawings show the building
only 3-feet above the maximum height. It would appear that 3-feet would be the
minimum necessary, if necessary at all. The house is extremely large and in the
opinion of the Planning Division, the extra space above the,garage is not a necessity
Robert Drucker
File No. V-96-47
e.' Page 5 of 6
co,:-,�� Comprehengive'Plan (ECDC)
1. C6niprehensive Plan, Desionation
a), Fact: Ile'Comprehensive Plan designates die subject property as Low Density
Residential.
W Cohclusiori�. , The proposed project is consistent with, the Low Density. Residential
designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
D Technical Committee
1. Review by City Depa tments
r
a) Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments.
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.
A. 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.
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,
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!
Robert Drucker
File No. V-96-47,
ppge of 6
V. PENDICES
:Ith 7 ed.
ttathmehts, r6ugh are attach
I V— ity /,Zoning Ma
Icin P.
2- App ication
I Declaration of the Applicant
4 .,Site Plan and Elevation
5. Letter from Ken.& Dianne Astrof
6. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Patera
7.'. Letter from Mavis & Harry Norton
8. Letter from Evelyn Arrigoni-Schmidt
VU,: PARIUS OF RECORD,
Rober Drucker Sandall Norrie Architects
Ken & Dianne Astrof.
Mr. and Mrs, Patera
3130 Fuhrrnan Ave E 500 Union St. Suite 900
7311 172nd St. SW
7305, 72nd St� SW
Seattle� WA 98102 Seattle, WA 98101
Edmonds, WA,98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
Mavis & Harry Norton, Evelyn Arrigoni-Schmidt
Planning.Division
Parks Division
7321172 nd St. Sw 1221 142nd CL SE
Engineerifig'Division
Public Works Division
*:Edmonds, WA 98026 Mill Creek; WA 98012
Fire Department
-V '047 1446 iituif,Repoit
9 -DOCI May 9
j",
city of -ecL-.honds
land use arml-ication
L3 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
L3 COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
E3 HOME OCCUPATION
C3 FORMAL SUBDIVISION
0 SHORT SUBDIVISION
0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
[3 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
13 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
STREET VACATION
C3 REZONE
13 SHORELINE PERMIT
K�XRIANCE / REASONA13LE USE
EXCEPTION
D OTHER
re- - � i5�, ::� 1� "I'll
FILE # J-ck-4-1 ZONE P-S-?,o
DATE -I&Z%� - REC'D BY Ykm
FEE 132495- 217 RECEIPT# 2-1013
HEARING DATE
9 HE Q STAFF 0 PB E) ADB 13 CC
ACTION TAKEN:
0 APPROVED L3 DENIED Q APPEALED
Applicant Z6ev4 k,-- L,.,- Phone 2526 72C -'T 7 1Cz
15(sc> Ave. e
Address WA 1& 122
Property Address or Location )11110 -74", Ave. W
Property Owner
Address 1 -1
Agent 'Phone
Address ;500 (-)AAk>**1 -goo
Tax Acc # 0o o - (22 - --- 0� 7- Sec. Twp. Rng.
Legal Description
A V ftx ez..,
Details of Project or Proposed Use PERMIT COUNTER
11111111r, P11911F.Ar-11-M
The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the
application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all
damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon
Wse, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information fumished by the applicant his/ her/ its agents or
employees.
The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to
enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this all"12,�
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT
6. The planned driveway to the house follows the existing steep
slope. The driveway grade is 15%, and it could not be steeper
without being unsafe. Therefore the garage, and the house
below it, are as low -on the site as is possible for safe access.
A height variance is the only way to accomodate a house on
this steep lot. Four feet is the minimum variance that will
allow this house to be built.
See Site Plan Attached.
May 8, 1996
MAY 8 1996 Ken and Dianne Astrof
PLANNow LIWT. 7311 172nd St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
City of Edmonds
Planning Department
250 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Planning Officials,
We are opposed to the granting of a height variance for the property at 17110 74th Ave W.,
File # V-9647.
AsTito V)r
C Loa OV (AmSSANT
7-1110 -I&ir
4-
V%
PA
tic ACLS -5
The following points cover our concerns on the variance criteria as set rth by the city:
I . Special Circumstance: None. This property is fairly ordinary terrain for the area. The lot appears to
be no steeper than adjacent lots, i.e., Olson's to the south or neighbors to the north. it certainly
appears flatter than the properties directly east i.e., Astrofs, Schmidt's and Norton's.
2. Special Privilege: Yes. Variance, if granted, would be a special privilege. We are not aware of any of
the neighboring houses having a height variance. The most recent homes in Eagles Crest (east of
Patera's and Astrof's) were denied height variances when they were built; i.e., we all complied with
the height requirements as set forth by the City, and planned and built beautiful homes.
3. Comprehensive Plan: NIA
4. Zoning Ordinance: N/A
5. Not Detrimental: Views not being affected at all is highly unlikely. the
6. Minimum Variance: A beautiful house could be built without a height variance as are
neighboring houses, all of which have driveways which are below grade. The appearance and
functioning of all the homes is not affected by being below road grade. .
We believe the preceding comments show that the request for a height variance does not meet the City Of
Edmonds criteria and that the request should be denied.
Unfortunately wewill be out of the country on May 16th, the date of the hearing, so we trust this letter
will serve to inform the Planning Department of our opinions.
Sincerely,
413- COS
Att -henent, 51
SIC