18332 80TH AVE W.pdfZ ""W
C y
CITY OF EDMONDS
BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS,WA98020 (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
Z
<
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
01
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
C)l
W
Uj:
APPLICANT: Mr. Joe Scialdone
(n LL
CASE NO.: V 97-118
0
Uj
LOCATION- 18332 - 80th Avenue W. (see Attachment 1).
U.
T
APPLICATION: A variance to reduce the required south side setback from 10 &et
Ld
to I foot I to allow a I 3-foot b y 25-foot carport to remain (see
Z 1—
OR
Exhibit A, Attachments 2 throu h 4).
9
UA U11
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner con ducts public.hearing and makes,
M
U Ln
decision.
0
LU W
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16
Z
LU
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards).
L)
Z
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
(VARIANCES).
SUMMARY OFRECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions
0
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 application was opened at 10:05 a.m., November 11; 1997, in the Plaza Room,
Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:15 a.m. Participants at the
. public
0
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
01
j
From the City:
Meg Gruwell reviewed the staff report and the recommended conditions of approval.
From the Applicant:
Joe Scialdone, applicant, said:
When the road was paved over 25 years ago then6ighbors tried to get the City to
regrade the hill, but the City wouldn't do it.
His drive should have been at the top of the hill, instead of the bottom of the hill
and the house plan should have been flipped to accommodate that.
He un rstan s t e nee to UreSS SLOrM water problems, but doesn L want to e
required to install storm water retention for all of the impervious surfaces on his
lot.
From the Community:,
No one from the general public attended the hearing.
Response by the City:
Meg Gruwell explained that the condition referring to surface water relates only to theL
carport in question and not to all of the other pre-existing impervious surfaces on the lot,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is approximately 11,326 square feet and �shape (see
Attachment 4).
(2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a family residence.
VA',
R
Zoning: The subject property is located in a Single -Family Residential �IiS - 11)
5�
�k
zone (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The street in front of the house slopes down from north to
south, and the subject site slopes up from the street. The slop e is steepest,by the
street, then levels off where the house sits, then slopes up steeply again in the back
Nt
i'� y
�'4 '!�v, j"P� ":�t F. v,
-VI A;1",'�",
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-118
Page 3
yard. As shown on the site plan (Exhibit A, Attachment 4), a rockery and log wall
hold up the slope on the north half of the property, along the street and driveway.
In the rear yard, the area nearest the carport at the south side of the house has been
terraced to hold up an approximately 3 foot elevation change. Along the west
property line is a steep slope, which is held up at the base of it by an
approximately 1.5-foot tall retaining wall. The site is landscaped with trees,
shrubs and lawn.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) The surrounding properties in all directions are zoned Single -Family Residential
(RS 12) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(2) The surrounding properties in all directions are developed with single-family
esi
r Wences, with the exception of the lot to the east, which is undeveloped,
B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
1 . Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA (WAC
197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080).
C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Critical Areas Compliance
a) Facts:
(1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.13 (Critical Areas
Ordinance).
(2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-97-171) and a waiver
was granted to the critical areas study requirement.
b) Conclusion: The applicant has met the requirements of the Critical Areas.
Ordinance.
2. Compliance with RS-12 Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards pertainina to residential development
in the RS-12 zone is set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. These include the following
for locating structures:
Aft
0
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-118
Page 4
Street Setback
Rear Setback
Side Setbacks
Maximum Height
Lot Coverage
b) Conclusion- The proposal complies wi
standards except for the requested variances.
.3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance
a) Facts:
25 feet
25 feet (5 feet for detached
accessory structures covering less
than 600 square feet, and less than
15 feet tall)
10 feet
25 feet (15 feet for detached
accessory structures)
35%
in the requirements of the RS-12 zoning
(1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth themechanism whereby a provision of the
Code may be varied on a case -by -case ba�iis if the application of the provision
would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows:
(a) Special Circ umstances: That because speci circumstances relating to the
property such as size, shape, topo ap�y, location or surroundings of the
property, strict enforcement of the zor ing ordinance would deprive the owner
of use rights and privileges permitted o other properties in the vicinity with
the same zoning. Special circurnst ces should not be predicated upon any
factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which
may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a
scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any
factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same
property.
(b) Special Privilege: That the approval the variance would not be a grant of
special privilege to the property in co arison with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
(c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance
will be consistent with the intent of the' comprehensive plan, the zoning
of
TP
ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located.
(d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, asi approved or conditionally approved,
will not be significantly detrimental to� the public health, safety and welfare or
injurious to the property or improve I nts in the vicinity and the same zone.
TO
"I' I
r-11
Q
0
a
UJ
LL
Z
(e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to
allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning.
(2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the
decisional criteria as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3):
(a) The applicant states that the slope of 80th Avenue W. creates a blind hill by
his driveway, so that cars entering the driveway from the northbound lane of
80th Avenue W. have to accelerate into the driveway. This necessitates
keeping a portion of the driveway clear for these fast-moving vehicles to slow
down. The applicant also points out that many trees grow on or near the lot,
so that covered parking is desirable to keep his vehicles clean. He also states
that the setbacks limit his property, that the steepness of the slope makes it
less safe to park cars on the driveway for fear of them rolling into the road,
and that his property was granted a variance to allow the lot to be 11,326
square feet, which made it so he could not fit the parking on the south side of
his home.
(b) The applicant has driven his neighborhood (Seaview) and discovered what
appear to be many violations of the setback regulations. He states that he
found no variances for the sites he was checking. No specific addresses are
listed, as the applicant thought they were too numerous to list.
(c) The applicant states that the carport is a use consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the area, and that it is consistent the
Zoning Ordinance for a residential area.
(d) The applicant declares that the variance would not be injurious or harmful to
any person on his property or any adjacent property, nor would it obstruct any
view or have any financial effect on any property or their surroundings.
(e) The applicant states that if he maintained a 10-foot setback on the south side,
0 the carport could only be 4 feet wide. If he constructed the carport in the front
of the house, the car would protrude 3 feet out of the structure, plus it would
make an already hazardous driveway more hazardous. The back yard is almost
inaccessible due to terrain, fie states.
�� 11 1.
(3) The applicant's house currently has two garage doors, both single -wide, which
presumably provide parking for two vehicles. Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 requires a minimum of only one parking space'
per lot in the single-family residential zone. However, ECDC Section
16.20.010.B.6.d. allows as a permitted secondary use an accessory building
providing private parking for no more than five cars.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-118
Page 6
(4) The design of the carport is a very basic shed roof, sloping away from the house
and draining to the fence line. It is somewhat hidden from the road by the trees to
the east and the house to the north. To the south is a 6-foot tall fence, which hides
the parked vehicles from the neighbor to the south. The carport has already been
constructed without the benefit of a building permit.
(5) The city was alerted to the presence of the carport by a complaint in file ZE-97-
65. The owner has requested this variance as a first step in getting the proper
pennits for his carport.
(6) By Resolution 867 the city decided to charge double fees for those applications
where the construction had already taken place before the variance or other permit
was requested. The applicant has to date only paid the single fee for the variance
application, which is $132.
(7) The applicant has told the Code Enforcement Specialist that he plans to use the
carport to park a Recreational Vehicle.
(8) The subject lot was created by short subdivision file S-55-66. The originally
proposed lots met the required lot size, but because the Engineering Division
required an additional road dedication, the lot size was reduced to ap roximately
.P
11,365. The additional area was not at the south side of the house, but extended
into what is now 80th Avenue right-of-way.
(9) The Building Official has submitted a memorandum regarding the Uniform
Building Code for carports near property lines (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6).
Open carports within three feet of a property line are required to add fire walls,
making them closed carports. Regulations of the Uniform Building Code are
designed to provide for health and safety considerations.
b) Conclusions:
(1) The applicant's site has special circumstances in the slope on both the street, and
the slope on the site itself. Staff agrees that a large area in the driveway should be
kept clear for cars attempting to quickly clear the oncoming lane of traffic and
then slow down. The north side of the property is fairly inaccessible for a garage
due to the rockery and log wall, and according to the site plan it only has 8.5 feet
available in width. The rear of the property has a slope to it, but it has already
been terraced as part of the landscaping. It appears to be possible to fit a 13 foot
by 26.5 foot carport in the rear yard, accessed along the south side and ramping up
to (or digging out to) the back yard. However, in order to maneuver a recreational
vehicle (RV) into this site would require a radius around the comer of the
building. In order to get an adequate radius would probably require digging into
the hillside, which would disrupt the hillside and probably cut into the rear
setback. The applicant also points out that a previous owner requested a variance
to lot size and was granted it, and he contends that if the variance had not been
granted, he would not need a variance now. The code is quite specific that the
actions of an owner or previous owner of property cannot be the cause of the
reason why a variance is needed now. However, the variance was granted, not so
the property line could be reduced on the south side of his property, but because of
a required street dedication. If the street dedication had not been required and
thus a variance not needed, the type of parking they are proposing would still have
needed a variance because of the topography of this lot.
(2) The applicant points out that many properties in his neighborhood appear not to
meet required setbacks. Of course, other people illegally constructing additions in
the setbacks on their property does not make it appropriate to grant this variance.
In looking at the immediately surrounding properties, I saw no setback intrusions.
Slopes in this area may force some property owners to request variances, but the
generally large size of the lots offer more flexibility to deal with the slopes on the
sites. The subject property and the nearby lots have additional constraints due to
the blind hill on 80th Avenue W. Compared to other lots which have both slopes
on the lot to contend with and the danger of the blind hill, granting this variance
would not be a grant of special privilege. Because of the slope of this lot and the
danger presented by the blind hill on 80th Avenue W. flexibility in the regulations
is needed for lots in these predicaments.
(3) The proposed use is an accessory use to a residential use, which is in conformance
with the comprehensive plan (see also Section E below). The application meets
the intent of the zoning ordinance.
(4) The Uniform Building Code requires that carports be either placed three feet from
the property line, if they are to be open structures, or allows carports to be within
three feet of the property line if that portion within three feet of the property line
are enclosed with a one -hour fire rated wall with no openings. Allowing less than
the required building code standards would sacrifice health and safety
considerations. The proposed location of the south side of the carport places it
very close to the 6 - high fence along the property line, and could seem imposing
to the neighbor to the south. Because of how near the carport is to the property
line, rainwater should be collected from the carport and disposed of properly. If
the proposed variance is conditioned to meet the Uniform Building Code and
properly dispose of rain water, it will not be significantly detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvement in the
vicinity.
a (5) The applicant currently has two garage doors on'their home, which provides more
parking than is required in a single-family residential zone, and fairly typical of
what is provided for most single-family residences. However, the code does
allow parking for up to five vehicles as a permitted accessory use, so the request
for parking of three vehicles is not out of line with what is allowed by code. If the
parking was for a small vehicle, a narrower carport would be appropriate, but
since the carport is intended for an RV, a wider and taller carport is needed. The
LU
9
X
Z
0
Q
LU
U-
Z
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-118
Page 8
garage doors on the house are not big enough to accommodate a standard RV.
Recreational vehicles are fairly common vehicles at Edmond's homes, and parking
them at their homes is a'right enjoyed by many homeowners in Edmonds. As
Recreational Vehicles often leak, it seems preferable to allow carports to protect
the RV instead of having them covered with blue tarps. The carport is less
visually and structurally intrusive than a fully enclosed garage, and thus is a
minimum structure to protect the RV.
D. Technical Committee
1. Review by City Departments
a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire
Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, Building Official, and the
Parks and Recreation Division. The Building Official's comments are in Exhibit A,
Attachment 6, and the Engineering Division has pointed out that the applicant will
need to comply with all the terms of any future permits and that issuance of a building
permit may require installation of a storm water detention facility (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 5).
b) Conclusion: The applicant will need to comply with the terms of the Uniform
Building Code and any future permits.
E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family" residential on the
comprehensive plan.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
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.
0 (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that:,",Mgh quality residential development
which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be,
maintained and promoted ......
(2) Policy B.2 states "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing
buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area."
0.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-118
Page 9
b) Conclusion: The proposed carport is a very basic style shed roof. It is hidden from the
z I view by the fence to the south, the trees to the east, and the house to the north. The
< proposed variance is not inconsistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the
city.
LU
_J DECISION
uj�
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved,
W �!
�J subject to the following conditions:
(n U.
—0
LU
1. The south side setback of the proposed carport shall be no less than I foot 8 inches from
:3� south property line, as shown on the site plan (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
U_
2. The carport must be brought into compliance with the Uniform Building Code by maintaining
Z J.-i a three foot setback to the property line, or providing the required fire -wall protection., (Other
sections of the Uniform Building Code will alSoLapply and must complied with.)
W LUI
3. Rainwater should be collected from the carport and disposed of in a manner not to harm
0 Lai neighbor's property.
W Ui
4. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
U. 0 Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance
z
(Wn with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
5. The applicant must obtain a building permit. Double fees are charged for work done prior
z obtaining a building permit.
6. The applicant shall pay the $132 fee to cover the double fees for the variance.
7. The applicant will need to comply with all the,terms of any future permits.
8. The permit is transferable.
Entered this 20th day of November, 1997, 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 Exarniner
F1
X;A,
0
V
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-118
Page 10
CONSIDERATION 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.
01:�l #)M)111M01;T4#-(9M
12a�_*J J 3"A'd Qza;* .
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.
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.'
J NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
V—
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request
a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
0 EXHIBIT:
The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Building Official
Sm
10"ll - " � ", , " .;, � - -, - - ,
TH;S '0 �HF IWALITY OF THE DOCUMEN F
CITY:OF EDM ONDIS
BARBARA, FAHEY
MAYOR
121 STH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221
z
C
COMMUNITY SERVICESDEPARTMENT.
Public Works Plinnlng�Building Parks and Recreation, Engineering Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Teansm
'ittal
-J1
01
U) LU
1ki,
I I I Date:
October 31,1997
-J
U) LL
—0
Lu
To:
Joe Scialdone
18332 80th Ave. e.
u-
Wei
Edmonds, WA 98026
z
Subject
V-97-118
0
UJ W
ifting
Agenda & Staff Report
U Lh
0 tz
ForLYour Information* X
LL.: C)
. . , ;;
AS Lyou re uested:
I q
UJ
For your file
z
Comment:
Note attachments:
Sincerely,
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
cc:
Ron McConnell
Eng. Division
.1ncqrPO rated,AUqust 1 1890 4i
Citie s international Hekinan,.Japan
1 0
1 0 i.
11-
a
3
CITY OF EDMONDS .
121.- STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, *A 98020
PLANNING DMSION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS� AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To:" Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
From:
M.E. Wg Gruwell
Project Planner
Date: OCTOBER 30,1997
File: V-97-118
JOE SCLALDONE
Hearing' Date, Time, And Place: November 6,1997, At 9:00 AM,
Plaza Room - Edmonds Library
650 Main Street
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-iA
Section 'PageL
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... ...... 21
A. APPLICATION ................................................................................... 2
B. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 2
............................... ...... ..............
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ........ ............................... 2
..........................
A. SrrEDEsCRipTtoN .................. ..................... ..... .................................................................................. 2
B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) ............................................... ............................................ 3
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE .......... . .
........................................ ...... 3
D. TtCHNICAL COMMITTEE ....................................................... ................................................... .............
. .6
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) ........................ ............................................................................. ............ 7
III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS ................... ............. .......... ............................ 7
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ................... ..................... I ........... ....................... I ................ ....... I ............ 7,
B. APPEALS ................................................................. I ........................... ...... 7.
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ................. ............................ ...... . ...... ................................ so ......... 8
V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR .... ............................................ ................... o ....... 8
VI. ATTACIUVWNTS ............................................................ o .......... : ........................... ........ ...... 6:8
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD .................... . ................. ...... ........ .......................... I
-V-97-118.DOC OCto S #ppoo
4p.,
77-
0
10
Lij (n
U:F
P F-,l
0
IT,
YJ
11C
R
1.1
Lli
0
z
I Ir
14f]
1#1
E
=F
0
Z
I -r
E
E
Mr. Joe Scialdond
R6 No. VM-1 18
..:�Pa 4of8
3. Cqmpliautce,with Requirements for a Variance.
a) 'Eacts,
(1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby 'a provision of the
Code, may be varied on a case -by -ease basis if the application of the provision would,
result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The c n a are as follows*
(a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to
the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the
property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the
owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other'propeities in die
vicinity with.the same zoning. Special circumstances should not be
predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability,
extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinancei
the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use.of
the property,,nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any.
past owner of the same property.
(b) SI)ecial Ptivilep—e: That the avI)roval of the variance would not be a grant of
special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
(c) Comrirehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance That the approval of the.
variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the
zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located.
(d) Not Detrimental That the variance, as approved or conditionally.approvM_
will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welf4e
or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same
zone.
(e) Minimum Variance That the approved variance is the minimum necessary
to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. with the. .
same zoning.
(2) The applicant has submitted declarations with,their submittal which, Address �the
decisional criteria as follows (see Attachment 3):
(a) The applicant states that the slope of 80th Avenue W. creates a blind hill by
his driveway, so that cars entering the driveway from thenorthbound lane of
80th Avenue W. have to accelerate into the driveway. This necessitates
keeping a portion of the driveway clear for these faa-moving vehicles.to'
M
slow down. The applicant also points out that many trees grow on or near
the lot, so that covered parking is desirable to keep his vehicles clean, He
also states that the setbacks limit his property, that the steepness of the slope
makes it less safe to park cars on the driveway for fear of them rolling'. into
the road, and that his property was granted a variance to allow the lot to be
11,326 square feet, which made it so he could not fit the parking on the
south side of his home.
(b) The applicant has driven his neighborhood (Seaview) and discovered what
appear to be many.violations of the setback regulations. He states that. he
found no variances for the sites he was checking; No specific addresses are
listed, as the applicant thought they Were too.numerous to list.
(c) Theapplicant states that the carport is -a use consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the area, and, that it is c onsistdnt,wi.
the Zoning Ordinance for a residential area.
V-97-1 I 8.DOC 0 991TIStaff ktqibrf:;�'
ctob�r 30i� 1
0
M — .
A
Mr. Joe Scialdone
File No. V-97-118
Page,5 of 8
(d) The appi ' icant declares that the variance would not be injurious or harmful to
any person on his property or any adjacent property, nor would it obstruct
any view or have any financial effect on any property or their surroundings.
(e) The applicant states that if he maintained a 10-foot setback on the south
side, the carport could only be 4 feet wide. If he constructed the carport in
the front of the house, the car Would protrude 3 feet out of the structure, plus
it would make an already hazardous driveway more hazardous. The back
yard is almost inaccessible due to terrain, he states.
(3) The applicant's house currently has two garage doors, both single -wide, which
presumably provide parking for two vehicles. Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 requires a minimum of only one parking space per
lot in the single-family residential zone. However, ECDC Section 16.20.OMB.6.d.
allows as a permitted secondary use an accessory building providing private parking
for no more than five cars.
(4) The design of the carport is a very basic shed roofj sloping away from the house and
draining to the fence line. It is somewhat hidden from the road by the trees to the
east and the house to the north. To the south is a 6-foot tall fence, which hides the
hh— - the — th
parked vehicles from the
.—F-At as ready ren
constructed without the benefit of a building permit.
(5) The city was alerted to the presence of the carport by a complaint in file ZE-97-65.
The owner has requested this variance as a first step in getting the proper permits for
his carport.
(6) By Resolution 867 the city decided to charge double fees for those applications
where the construction had already taken place before the variance or other permit
was requested. The applicant has to date only paid the single fee for the variance
application, which is $132.
(7) The applicant has told the Code Enforcement Specialist that he plans to use the
carport to park a Recreational Vehicle.
(8) The subject lot was created by short subdivision file S-55-66. The originally
proposed lots met the required lot size, but because the Engineering Division
required an additional road dedication, the lot size was reduced to approximately
11,365. The additional area was not at the south side of the house, but extended into,
what is now 80th Avenue right-of-way.
(9) The Building Official has submitted a memorandum regarding the Uniforrii Building
Code for carports near property lines (see Attachment 6). Open carports within three
feet of a property line are required to add fire walls, making them closed carports.
Regulations of the Uniform Building Code are designed to provide for health and
safety considerations.
b) Conclusions:
(1) The applicant's site has special circumstances in the slope on both the street, and the
slope on the site itself. Staff agrees that a large area in the driveway should be kept
clear for cars attempting to quickly clear the oncoming lane of traffic and then slow
down. The north side of the property is fairly inaccessible for a garage due to the
rockery and log wall, and according to the site plan it only has 8.5 feet available in
width. The. rear of the property has a slope to it, but it has already been terraced as
part of the landscaping. It appears to be possible to fit a 13 foot by 26,5 foot carport
in the rear yard, accessed along the south side and ramping up to (or digging, outjo)
the back yard. However, in order to maneuver a recreational vehicle (RV) into this
site would require a radius around the comer of the building. In order�to get.rati`.'�.
adequate radius would probably require digging into the hillside, which. would
disrupt the hillside and probably cut into the rear setback.. The applicant"itko points
V-97-118-DOC /October 30,19971 Stdtlkepon
I V,
E
101
MrJoeScialdofia
File No. V-97-1 18
Page6of8
out that a previous owner requested a variance to lot. size, and was granted it,. and he
contends that if the variance had not been granted, he would not need a variance now.
The code is quite specific that the actions of an owner or previous owner of property
cannot. be the cause of the reason why a variance is needed now. However, the
variance was granted, not so the property line could be reduced on the south side of
his property, but because of a required street dedication. If the street dedication had
not been required and thus a variance not needed, the type of Parking they are
proposing would still It e needed a vari cc because of the t o—phy of this lot
The applicant points out that many properties in his neighborhood appear not to meet
required setbacks. Of course, other people illegally constructing additions in the
setbacks on their property does not make if appropriate to grant this variance. In
looking at the immediately surrounding properties, I saw no setback intrusions.,
Slopes in this area may force some property owners to request variances, but the
generally large size of the lots offer more flexibility to deal with the slopes on the
sites. The subject property and the nearby lots have additional constraints due to the
blind hill on 80th Avenue W. Comparedto other lots which have both slopes on the
lot to contend with and the danger of the blind hill, granting this variance would not
be a grant of special privilege. Because of the slope of this lot and the danger
presented by the blind hill -on 80th Avenue W. flexibility in the regulations is needed
for lots in these predicaments.
(3) The proposed use is an accessory use to a residential use, which is in conformance
with the comprehensive plan (see also Section E below). The application meets the
intent of the zoning ordinance.
(4) The Uniform Building Code requires that carports be either placed three feet from
the property line, if they are to be open structures, or allows carports to be within
three feet of the property line if that portion within three feet of the property line are
enclosed with a one -hour fire rated wall with no openings. Allowing less than the
required building code standards would sacrifice health and safety considerations.
The proposed location of the south side of the carport places it very close to the 6-
foot high fence along the property line, and could seem imposing to the neighbor to
the south. Because of how near the carport is to the property line, rainwater should
be collected from the carport and disposed of properly. If the proposed variance is
conditioned to meet the Uniform Building Code and properly dispose of rain water, it
will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or
injurious to the property or improvement in the vicinity.
(5) The applicant currently has two garage doors on their home, which provides more
parking than is required in a single-family residential zone, and fairly typical of what
is provided for most single-family residences. However, the code does allow parking
for up to five vehicles as a permitted accessory use, so the request for parking of
three vehicles is not out of line with what is allowed by code. If the parking was for a
small vehicle, a narrower carport would be appropriate, but since die carport is
intended for an RV, a wider and taller carport is needed. The garage doors on the
house are not big enough to accommodate a standard RV. Recreational vehicles are
fairly common vehicles at Edmond's homes, and parking them at their homes is a
right enjoyed by many homeowners in Edmonds. As Recreational Vehicles often
leak, it seems preferable to allow carports to protect the RV instead of having them
covered with blue tarps. The carport is less visually and structurally intrusive than a
fully enclosed garage, and thus is a minimum structure to protect the,RV.
A Technical Committee
1. Review by City Departments
a) Eact. The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire.
Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, Building.Official, an rd t ' he
Y-0- I 18MOC O'etobe - r 36, 1,997 Staff Report
An
0
of,
Mr. Joe Scialdone
File No. V-97-118
Page7ofll,
Parks and Recreation Divisiom, Ile Building Official's comments are in Attachment 6,
and the Engineering Division has pointed out that the applicant Will heed to comply with
all the terms of any future permits and that issuance of a building permit may require
installation of a storm water detention facility (see Attachment 5).
b) Conclusion The applicant will need to comply with the terins of the Uniform
Building Code and any future permits.
�E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Eact. The subject property is designated. as "Single Family" residential on the
comprehensive plan.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive
Plan Land Use designation for the site.,
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) 'Eacts- 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 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 ......
(2) Policy B.2 states "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing
buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area."
b) Conclusion The proposed carport is a very basic style shed roof. It is hidden from the
view by the fence to the south, the trees to the east, and the house to the north. The
proposed variance is not inconsistent With the above adopted goals and policies of the
city.
HL RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and a ppeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A.
oil B.
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 it Hearing Exaniiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. Ile appeal shall be made, in ' writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the Project applicant and the date of the'*decision,
the name and address of the individual or group appealing the, decision, their interesvi I n the matter,
and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal mu I st.be fil I ed':with
V-97-118.DOC/October-30,'1997/StalffRepod
W
Lil U)
Iv-
0
E