Loading...
19808 77TH PL W (2).pdf1 0 0 , 7V C FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Apphcant: Winston Whall File No.: V 97-113 AP 97-146 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This matter involves a variance request by Winston Whall to (1) increase the maximum allowed height of an accessory structure (detached garage) of 15 feet to 151/2 feet and (2) reduce the required west -side setback from 71/2 feet to 51/2 feet to correct an encroachment from a 1992 single residence addition. The subject structures have already been constructed and are located at 19808 77th Place West. 2. The Edmonds Planning Division has recommended denial of the variance request. 3. The Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the variance request on October 16, 1997 and issued Findings, Conclusions and Decision denying the variance on October 30, 1997. 4. A closed record appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision was held before the City Council on December 16, 1997. Edmonds planning staff summarized the record for the Council. Argument in favor of the proposed variance was presented by the appellant, Winston Whall. Opposing argument was provided by Peter Schuldt, an interested neighbor. 5. The City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, the administrative record, a transcript of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and arguments by interested parties. Based upon this evidence, the Council determined that the Decision of the Hearing Examiner is affirmed in all respects. 6. In support of its decision, the City Council hereby adopts the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision of the Hearing Examiner on this variance request, Case No. V 97- 113, said Decision dated October 30, 1997. DECISION Winston Whall's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's denial of Mr. Whall's variance request for Case No. V 97-113 is hereby denied, The Decision of the Hearing Examiner denying the variance is hereby affirmed. PA0182274. ISXIOW6.130.065 5a Cie 19 77: 9 TY Cl s 5i�YOR BARBAR�A�. F�AHEY —MAYOR BARB EY ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED, c J. uld. X, id "SANDRA S. CHASE; CITY CLERK Z� UJ,W j PA018n74.lSXt0W.130.065 _2 LU U- LU 0 z Comment: Note attachments: 1Z M 0, G I I COUNCILMEMBER, VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 6,1998 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #19474 THRU #22261 FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 29,1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $454,055.66. APPROVAL OF CLAIM pprove WARRANTS #19487 THRU #22301 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 5,1998, IN THE arrants AMOUNT OF $217,327.45. APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #19489 THRU #22594 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 12,' 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $136,873.78. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #19149 THRU #19296 FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 16 THRU DECEMBER 31,1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $324,442.09. klaims for I (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM REBECCA J. SMITH amages (Amount Undetermined), AND GERALD H. McARTHUR ($105-00) kdifigiof� 0,; V (E) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACTAM CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CLOSED - No.,AP- RECORD APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINERIS DECISION WHICH WAS HELD -146 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 6,1997. (AppeHant/Applicant: Winston Whall / File Nos. V-97-113 & AP-97-146; Property Location: 19808 77th Place West) (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A VEHICLE FOR THE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT urplus (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO SELL SURPLUS VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT (H) APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH PROSECUTOR JEFFREYGOODWIN (I) APPROVAL OF INTIRLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOCOM RELATED TO STEVE PERRY'S SERVICE AS DIRECTOR (J) APPROVAL OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SALARY ORDINANCE NO. 3185 RELATED TO STEVE PERRYS SERVICE AS DIRECTOR OF SNOCOM (L) ORDINANCE NO. 3186 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 8.32-050, PROHIBITING COMPRESSION BRAIKES, TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES Councilmernber White explained the Public Safety Committee addressed this issue late last year as it is against the law to skateboard, scooter, roller skate, etc. on any public street in Edmonds. Following a linear -miss" auto accident, the police informed residents that skateboarding was not permitted even on the block -long cul-de-sac. Approximately 30 citizens participated in the discussion it the Public Safety Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 1998 Page 2 Eli, K111 0 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Item Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION WHICH WAS HELD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 16,1997. (APPELLANTIAPPLICANT: WINSTON WHALL / FILE NOS. V-97-113 & AP-97-146; PROPERTY LOCATION: 19808 77TH PLACE WEST). Agenda Time: Consent Agenda Date: Exhibits Attached: January 20,1997 1. City Council Minutes of 12/16/97 2. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Clearances: Department/Initials; Admin Svcs/Finance City Attorney ­ City Clerk Court Personnel Fire Police Community Svcs Engineering Parks & Rec Planning Public Works Treatment Plant City Council Mayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Conununity Services Public Saft Approvedfor Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $0 Budgeted: $0 Required: $0 Funding Source: N/A Previous Council Action: On December 16, 1997, the City Council held a closed record appeal hearing. The Council reviewed the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, the administrative record, a transcript of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and arguments by interested parties. Based upon this evidence, the Council deterinined that the Decision of the Hearing Examiner is affirmed in all respects (see Exhibit 1). Narrative: The attached Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law have been prepared by the City Attorney to support the decision of the Council to adopt the findings, Conclusions, and Decision of the Hearing Examiner dated October 30, 1997 denying the variance request. Recommended Action: Approve Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (Exhibit 2). z �— ;7- 0 Z �- 0 01-1 LU Lul LL z 61 (0 y 0 z M �t] process. He said he would be available to answer questions when the Council considered the CASCD proposal. Mayor Fahey announced that when the Olympic Ballefs guests arrived, they would be introduced between agenda items. FP.b-1177 Isdery I Publ c Safety Committee Committee Member White reported on the committee's review of the Fire Department contract with the Esperance Area which will be a model for other newly annexed areas. This was an informational presentation only, no action was taken. An ordinance reducing speed limits along SR 104 and 100th Avenue West Speed limits in newly annexed areas was reviewed; the proposed ordinance was approved as Consent Agenda Item S. The committee reviewed a proposed skateboard ordinance which expands areas in which skateboarding is prohibited and, by not defining other areas, will open them to skateboarding. The ordinance will be on a future Council agenda. The proposed contract for animal shelter service with Adix's Bed & Bath for Dogs and Cats was discussed by the committee and was approved as Item N on the Consent Agenda. A contract with the City of Mountlake Ter -race for animal control services wad discussed; this will be placed on an upcoming Consent Agenda due to some changes in the contract. An amendment to the Interlocal Agreement which creates the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force was discussed and was passed as Item M on the Consent Agenda. A community member's request for a full-time parking enforcement officer was referred to Chief Hickok for cost analysis and a report to the Human Resource Committee in January. The committee discussed the transfer of Police Administrator Supervisor Steve Perry to SnoCom as Interim Director. Councilmernber White noted SnoCom will reimburse the City for Mr. Perry's salary and benefits. Cononunity setvices Community Services Committee Member Haakenson reported on the review of the Sewer and Stormwater Rate Study coningnee implementation. He said Community Services Director Paul Mar presented a workplan and schedule for implementation of the proposed rate increases with a target date of April 1, 1998. Staff is preparing a summary review of the study results and a detailed public education workplan which will be presented to the Council in January. 7he committee concurred with this approach and reiterated its position that public education take place prior to the April implementation of rate increases. Finance Committee Committee Chairperson Nordquist thanked Councilmember Miller for serving on this committee during the past year. He also thanked Administrative Servi ces Director Art Housler and staff for their assistance. Councilmernber Nordquist reported the committee reviewed a lease of a new copier for Public Works. This item was approved on tonighVs Consent Agenda. The advertising policy for community requests was also discussed; Councilmember Miller recommended advertising be done on a quarterly basis. The audit report was reviewed and petty cash expenditures were approved with no discussion. City Attorney Phil Olbrechts explained this was a quasi judicial proceeding and asked if any Councilmernbers had any potential conflicts or appearance of fairness issues to disclose. Councilmember White said he has met Winston Whall on occasion in a professional capacity and was also acquainted in a professional capacity with his son, Jim, the tenant of the house. He said it had been at least two years since he spoke with either of them with the exception of a call from Jim Whall three weeks ago to inform him this would be on the Council's agenda. Coiincilmeniber White advised Mr. Whall he was unable to discuss the matter with him. Mr. 01brechts asked if there was any objection to Councilmember White's disclosure. Peter Schuldt, property owner to the west of the disputed property, requested Councilmember White remove himself from the decision if he had any personal relationship with the party involved, Mr. Olbrechts said the decision was Councilmember White's to make and asked if Councilmember White felt his professional relationship with the Whalls would influence his decision. Councilmember White answered no. Mr. Olbrechts said he did not see an appearance of fairness issue but Councilmember White could step down if he chose. Councilmember White said he would participate. Mayor Fahey pointed out the frequent possibility that there is some knowledge of the individuals involved because Edmonds is such a small community. She obser ed Councilmember te would not bene it any way v Whi fi in and therefore did not see any reason he should not participate. Planner Meg Gruwell displayed a site plan of the property. She said this was a closed record appeal and the record was included in the Council's packet. She summarized the issues, noting this came to City staffs attention via some complaints. The first was in regard to the setback of the garage which actually touched the existing property line. When staff researched the matter, they learned it wis constructed without the required building permits; when this was brought to the property ownees attention, he applied for a lot line adjustment which has been approved to correct the setback problem. As the building permit was being reviewed, it was determined there was a height problem as well. She clarified if the garage is a detached structure, there is a height issue; if the garage is attached (which it currently is), there is a setback issue. The property owner chose to correct the height issue via this variance process. A site plan had been submitted at the time of the 1992 addition and permits were issued. The site plan showed an 8Y2 foot setback which was actually incorrect. During construction, this problem was discovered and a "jog" made in the addition. A recent survey indicated the addition maintains only a 5Y2 foot setback rather that the required 7Y2 foot setback. Mr. Gruwell explained that the City also received a complaint regarding the setback issue and the applicant has chosen this process to correct the problem. In order to have a variance granted, the applicant must meet six criteria. She pointed out the special circumstances criteria could not be any factor resulting from the action of the owner. 7he Hearing Examiner determined the criteria was not met 0 and denied the variance. Mayor Fahey reiterated only information contained in the record could be considered; no new evidence' could be presented. Councilmember White asked if the garage was on a foundation. Ms. Gruwell answered both the garage 0 and the addition were. on foundations. Winston Whall. 12336 84th Place Z Edmonds. owner f 1980 77th- lace West, said the variances requested were to increase the maximum allowed height of a detached garage from -15 feet to 15Y2 feet Edmonds OtY council Appmed Minutes December 16,1997 Pap 6 MIN - 0 and to reduce the required west side setback from 7Y2 feet to SY2- 6 feet to c cro hmen fr orrect A-n en ac t om a 1992 addition. He explained the errors in the construction of the height of the garage and the side setback were acts of omission rather than commission. The garage was built in 1990 too close to the Property line. In early 1997, Ms. Tilton, the adjacent property owner, notified him that she was considering selling her property and had been advised by a real estate agent that the garage was built too close to the property line and suggested she file a complaint with the City. To rectify this problem, Ms. Tilton agreed to a lot line adjustment which was approved by the City; there was no complaint about the height of the garage. Ihe 6 inch height problem was discovered during the lot line adjustinent procedures. The construction of the garage is being reviewed by the City Building Department but has been held up until the variance issue is completed. Mr. Whall explained the addition to the house was approved by the City and constructed during 1992- 1993. During excavation for the foundation, dirt was piled on the west side of the property, obscuring the exact property line. When the foundation forms were in place, prior to pouring concrete, a line of sight reading indicated that the southwest comer of the addition 'may be too close to the property line. A revision was made in the plan; however, once the addition was completed, it was determined that the actual setback appeared to be only SY2 - 6 feet from the property line. Due to the uncertainty of the location of the property line, a survey of the exact property boundary was done which determined the distance was less than estimated. Mr. Whall pointed out the Hearing Examiner's conclusions stated the proposed variances would not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The Hearing Examiner also states the submittal of two complaints demonstrates the improvements made by the applicant or his representative have been found objectionable by at least two parties. Mr. Whall pointed out the complaint by Ms. Tilton did not apply to the height of the garage and was being met by the lot line adjustment. The complaint submitted by Mr. Schuldt referred to side setback of new and prior additions as well as the shed. He discussed this issue with Mr. Schuldt during the past six months and neither in his complaint nor during these discussions has he indicated that the encroachments have adversely affected the full utilization of his property or his property rights. He noted the north side of Mr. Schuldt's house, which faces the area of concern, does not have any windows or doors and an ungated fence extends north to the property line. Mr. Wball said the Hearing Examiner also referred to a petition signed by nine neighbors (submitted by Mr. Schuldt) who oppose the approval of the requested variances. Mr. Whall questioned why the neighbors were now opposed to his request for the variances as the structures were built 5 -7 years ago with no adverse comments at that time or during the interim years. His conversations with those who signed the petition indicated that the 6 inch height violation on the garage and the 1-2 foot side setback on the addition were not the Teal issue. When they were contacted by Mr. Schuldt and advised the garage was built without City approval and that the setback was in violation of the Code, the real issue to the community was that his son, who lives in the house and was the representative involved in the improvements, '"broke the law" and must realize these actions are unacceptable. Due to the conditions upon which the variances were requested and their existence for several years as well as that this had not been an issue until Ms. Tilton's concern, he requested the Council favorably consider the requested variances. Mayor Fahey observed no additional public testimony would be permitted. W. Olbrechts said individuals who testified at the original hearing were parties of interest and would have an opportunity to make argument. FAm=dS OtY Council Appmved Nnuto December 16, 1997 Pago 7 0 Peter S , 19812 77th Place West Edmonds, the property owner to the west, pointed out he and Mr. Whall did not have a discussion indicating this situation was not objectionable to him. He would not have filed a complaint if it was not objectionable. During this process, he researched remodeling that has occurred during recent years without permits and discovered a permit was issued only for the major addition in 1993. He urged the Council to review several drawings he submitted in the original hearing. He noted Ms. Gruwell's recommendation was to deny the variance and the Hearing Examiner also denied the variance. These decisions were based on the Code as well as criteria for a variance that were not met. He questioned whether a precedent would be set if the Hearing Examiner's decision was reversed. He requested the Council carefully review the information presented. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked what would occur if the denial was upheld. Ms. Gruwell answered the applicant would have to reduce the height of the garage by 6 inches. The addition that did not meet the setback would have to be reduced or a lot line adjustment agreed to with Mr. Schuldt. She was uncertain whether Mr. Schuldt had adequate property between his house and the addition to grant a lot line adjustment. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked if there was a setback issue on the north' property line. Ms. Gruwell said it would be in compliance if the garage were detached. Councilmember Myers observed if there had been a building permit requested, this information would have been discussed and this problem would not have arisen. Ms. Gruwell agreed, noting the problem with the addition was a result of an inaccurate site plan. Councilmerriber White asked how the City obtained a site plan. Ms. Gruwell explained the� applicant provides a site plan indicating the lot, where the structure will be located, setbacks, and structure height. Councilmember White asked who prepared the site plan. Ms. Gruwell said it is often done by an architect; however, a small addition is often done by the owner. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. COUNCELMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILNJEMBER HAAEENSON, To EXTEND THE DISCUSSION FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUMS. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Van Hollebeke referred to the Hearing Examiner's conclusions and read two which he felt summarized the process, " 1) The applicant and his representative constructed both the addition and the garage. With a better site plan or survey stakes in the ground they could have avoided the need for a side yard setback variance. With a different design, the garage could easily have been made six inches shorten It appears that the only reason for applying for the variances is that the past actions of the owner or his representative have not been in conformance with the adopted City regulations. Therefore, any special circumstance which exists was self created and is not related to code requirements as they relate to the subject property. No special circumstances due to topography, or size or shape of the lot have been presented by the applicant as reasons why -the variance should be granted." and "2) Other property owners in the vicinity are required to meet setbacks and height limits. Although most of the houses in the neighborhood have garages, these are usually either combined with the primary structure and maintain those regulations, or are attached structures which appear to meet regulations." Councilmember Van Hollebeke said he would support the Hearing Examiner's decision. Edmonds MY Council Approved Minutes December 16,1997 Pop 8 . M-E LL 0 Z Z LU all 2 :)i 5 0 LU Lul 1Z M % b": Council President Earling agreed with the comments made by C ounc"member Van Hollebeke. He recalled Other occasions when an error occurred and adj agreed with the Hearing Examinees decision. ustment was required to a structure. He also COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED$ SECONDED By COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, To UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMMRS RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED. Ineoducti n Mayor Fahey welcomed John Wilkins, Olympic Ballet, d his guests from Russia. Mr. Wilkens an ofouests thanked the City of Edmonds for its support of the arts and the opport OIrmic unity they Provide artists. Baum he is a citizen of Edmonds, business owner and also He said a board member on the South Snohomish Chamber of Commerce. He said he believed in regionalism and that the conummities should work together. He introduced Valery Anisimov and Irina Piatkina, two ardsts from Russia who Will be dancing in the Olympic Ballet's performance of "The Nutcracker" and invited the Council to attend. Valery Anisimov said this was the fourth time he has been in Edmonds. on p e 0 stayed in Edmonds but danced in Everett, Bellevue, and Seattle. He said it was i r vi us occasions, he and artists to have a new theater with a big stage. mportant for the City Irina Piatkina said she was happy to be in the City. She agreed it would be good to have a new theater here. Mayor Fahey encouraged the public to attend the Olympic Ballet Performance at Puget Sound Christian College on Saturday, December 20. She thanked the Olympic allet for their Performances an th enrichment they provide to the community. B d e EOld. 03179 6. ANMR 0. 3179 AMP"TNr- vixv t nn" A-nding 1997 MQUEUM Budget Administrative Services Director Art HOusler explained during the year the Council takes action to transfer moneys from one :ftmd to another or increasing expenditures appropra 0 requirements necessitate the passage of an Ordinance, ti ns. Legal audit This is done twice a year, in July and again at the end of the year. The proposed Ordinance amends the 1997 budget; the increase in appropriations -is $944,860. He provided examples of some of these expendi es such as the t=f Rmds to the medical self-insurance fund totaling $502,000; tur er from all operating fire department labor contract settlement of $63,000; and the replacement of the bucket truck at a cost of $51,000. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLiNG, To ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3179, AMENDING THE UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDnTRE 1997 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF CARRIED. S OF VARIOUS FUNDS. MOTION Od #3180 DGE1 Adopt 1"s CALL Budget Administrative Services Director Art Housler explained since the Council received the preliminary budget on November 1, there have been numerous discussions regarding changes to the budget. He explained changes necessary as a result Of annexations such as additional 8 He displayed and reviewed 1998 Budget Revisions by Fund. taff and additional revenue. Mayor Fahey noted the revenues from the Edmonds City Council APProved Minutes December 16, 1997 Page 9 0 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE THE EDMONDS Crry COUNCIL Applicant:, Winston Whall File No.: V 97-113 FINDINGS OF FA 1. Ibis matter involves a variance request by Winston Whall to (1) increase the allowed height of an accessory structure (detached garage) of 15 feet to 151/2 feet and (2) reduce the required west -side setback from 71/2 feet to 51/2 feet to correct an encroachment from a 1992 single residence addition. The subject structures have already been constructed and are located at 19808 77th Place West. 2. The Edmonds Planning Division has recommended denial of the variance request. 3. The Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the variance request on October 16, 1997 and issued Findings, Conclusions and Decision denying the variance on October 30, 1997. 4. A closed record appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision was held before the City Council on December 16, 1997. Edmonds planning staff summarized the record for the Council. Argument in favor of the proposed variance was presented by the appellant, Winston Whall. Opposing argument was provided by Peter Schuldt, an interested neighbor. 5. The City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, the administrative record, a transcript of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and arguments by interested parties. Based upon this evidence, the Council determined that the Decision of the Hearing Examiner is affirmed in all respects. 6. In support of its decision, the City Council hereby adopts the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision of the Hearing Examiner on this variance request, Case No. V 97- 113, said Decision dated October 30, 1997. 11) "lice)-LNJ Winston Wball's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's denial of Mr. Whall's variance request for Case No. V 97-113 is hereby denied. The Decision of the Hearing Examiner denying the variance is hereby affirtned. PA01V274.1SX1M.130.W Aff&qbmg_nL-2 . . . . . . . . . . ... da��of., 199 OF, -EDMONDS 'MAYOR BARBARA S. FAHEY tu W.� I I : A170VAUTHENTICATED: -J; crj.u. Lu., - MAC LA SANDRA S. CHASE, CF. Ty CLERK z to UJ,L LU LU ui U. Ul 0 PA01=74.1MIM.M.00 -2- cr ;5 =y -j U, 0 LU LU -j (n 'L'U' 0! E EV process. He said he would be available to answer questions when the Council considered the CASCD proposal. Mayor Fahey announced that when the Olympic Ballees guests arrived, they would be introduced between agenda items. 4. REEORT ON COUNCIL COMMME MEETING Public SafeW—Cgmmj= Committee Member White reported on the committee's review of the Fire Department contract with the Isarety I lCommittee Esperance Area which will be a model for other newly annexed areas. This was an informational presentation only, no action was taken. An ordinance reducing speed limits along SR 104 and 100th Avenue West Speed limits in newly annexed areas was reviewed; the proposed ordinance was approved as Consent Agenda Item S. The committee reviewed a proposed skateboard ordinance which expands areas in which skateboarding is prohibited and, by not defining other areas, will open them to skateboarding. The ordinance will be on a future Council agenda. The proposed contract for animal shelter service with Adix's Bed & Bath for Dogs and Cats was discussed by the committee and was approved as Item N on the Consent Agenda. A contract with the City of Mountlake Terrace for animal control services wad discussed; this will be placed on an upcoming Consent Agenda due to some changes in the contract. An amendment to the Interlocal Agreement which creates the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force was discussed and was passed as Item M on the Consent Agenda. A community member's request for a full-time parking enforcement officer was referred to Chief Hickok for cost analysis and a report to the Human Resource Committee in January. The committee discussed the transfer of Police Administrator Supervisor Steve Perry to SnoCom as Interim Director. Councilmember White noted SnoCom will reimburse the City for Mr. Perry's salary and benefits. Community Community Services services I Committee Member Haakenson reported on the review of the Sewer and Stormwater Rate Study Committee implementation. He said Community Services Director Paul Mar presented a workplan and schedule for implementation of the proposed rate increases with a target date of April 1, 1998. Staff is preparing a summary review of the study results and a detailed public education workplan which will be presented to the Council in January. The committee concurred with this approach and reiterated its position that public education take place prior to the April implementation of rate increases. FF T. 7 Finance Committee 1commi,ce Committee Chairperson Nordquist thanked Councilmember Miller for serving on this committee during the past year. He also thanked Administrative Services Director Art Housler and staff for their assistance. Councilmember Nordquist reported the committee reviewed a lease of a new copier for Public Works. This item was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. The advertising policy for community requests was also discussed; Councilmember Miller recommended advertising be done on a quarterly basis. The audit report was reviewed and petty cash expenditures were approved with no discussion. Closed Record Appeal - W. Whall File Nos. V-97-113 & AP-97-146 — I 1-*1 L Icaluk DIWO tt -D1 COVVII V [Sim TUi4W-1W14,1 U F0 VV__ 1 NVIW-11 W-013 41 "AL", =-=WWW-q of 0 Mt. W 01,11113 -7111 0 7,- I V W.VD1 1111; 1 D 00 JUM1.1111111W 45 -low I -Llllj[0�8 -WDI*4%7 T CoggECT AN-ENcROACHMENT FROM A 1992-ADDIUM. (AppellantlApplicant: Winston Whall / File No. V-97-113 & AP-97-146; Property Location: 19808 77th Place West) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 16.1997 Page 5 City Attorney Phil Olbrechts explained this was a quasi judicial proceeding and asked if any Councilmembers had any potential conflicts or appearance of fairness issues to disclose. Z Councilmember White said he has met Winston Whall on occasion in a professional Capacity and was also acquainted in a professional capacity with his son, Jim, the tenant of the house. He said it had been LUI rr 2! at least two years since he spoke with either of them with the exception of a call from Jim Wh thr all ee < M1 weeks ago to inform him this would be on the Council's agenda. Councilmember White advised Mr. Whall he was unable to discuss the matter with him. Mr. Olbrechts asked if there was any objection to W 1 Uji Councilmember Whites disclosure. Cn W X, -J I-- Cn tu Peter Schuldt, property owner to the west of the disputed property, requested Councilmember White LU 0 remove himself from the decision if he had any personal relationship with the party involved. Mr. Olbrechts said the decision was Councilmember White's to make and asked if Councihnember White felt U. < his professional relationship with the Whalls would influence his decision. Councilmember White LO 8 answered no. Mr. Olbrechts said he did not see an appearance of fairness issue but Councilmember F- !F White could step down if he chose. Councilmernber White said he would participate. Mayor Fahey Z F-1 pointed out the frequent possibility that there is some knowledge of the individuals involved because 0: �i �-! Edmonds is such a small community. She observed Councilinember White would not benefit in any way LU LUI 2 =)� and therefore did not see any reason he should not participate. NMI U W 0— Planner Meg Gruwell displayed a site plan of the property. She said this was a closed record appeal and the record was included in the Council's packet. She summarized the issues, noting this came to City UJ staffs attention via some complaints. The first was in regard to the setback of the garage which actually touched the existing property line. When staff researched the matter, they learned it was constructed Z! without the required building permits; when is was brought to e property owner's attention, he th th applied for a lot line adjustment which has been approved to correct the setback problem. As the building permit was being reviewed, it was determined there was a height problem as well. She clarified Z if the garage is a detached structure, there is a height issue; if the garage is attached (which it currently is), there is a setback issue. The property owner chose to correct the height issue via this variance process. A site plan had been submitted at the time of the 1992 addition and permits were issued. The site plan showed an 8Y2 foot setback which was actually incorrect. During construction, this problem was discovered and a "jog" made in the addition. A recent survey indicated the addition maintains only a 5 Y2 foot setback rather that the required 7 '/2foot setback. Mr. Gruwell explained that the City also received a complaint regarding the setback issue and the applicant has chosen this process to correct the problem. In order to have a variance granted, the applicant must meet six criteria. She pointed out the special circumstances criteria could not be any 0 factor resulting from the action of the owner. The Hearing Examiner determined the criteria was not met and denied the variance. Mayor Fahey reiterated only information contained in the record could be considered; no new evidence could be presented. 01 Councilmember White asked if the garage was on a foundation. Ms. Gruwell answered both the garage and the addition were on foundations. Winston Whall. 1 336 84th Place W Edmonds, omer of 19808 77th Place West, said the variances requested were to increase the maximum allowed height of a detached garage from 15 feet to 15Y, feet Edmonds City Council Approved Minums December 16,1997 Page 6 0 and to reduce the required west side setback from 7Y2 feet to 5Y2- 6 feet to correct an encroachment from a 1992 addition. He explained the errors in the construction of the height of the garage and the side setback were acts of omission rather than commission. The garage was built in 1990 too close to the property line. In early 1997, Ms. Tilton, the adjacent property owner, notified him that she was considering selling her property and had been advised by a real estate agent that the garage was built too close to the property line and suggested she file a complaint with the City. To rectify this problem, Ms. Tilton agreed to a lot line adjustment which was approved by the City; there was no complaint about the height of the garage. The 6 inch height problem was discovered during the lot line adjustment procedures. The construction of the garage is being reviewed by the City Building Department but has been held up until the variance issue is completed. Mr. Whall explained the addition to the house was approved by the City and constructed during 1992- 1993. During excavation for the foundation, dirt was piled on the west side of the property, obscuring the exact property line. When the foundation forms were in place, prior to pouring concrete, a line of sight reading indicated that the southwest comer of the addition may be too close to the property line. A revision was made in the plan; however, once the addition was completed, it was determined that the actual setback appeared to be only 5Y2 - 6 feet from the property line. Due to the uncertainty of the location of the property line, a survey of the exact property boundary was done which determined the distance was less than estimated. Mr. Whall. pointed out the Hearing Examiner's conclusions stated the proposed variances would not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The Hearing Examiner also states the submittal of two complaints demonstrates the improvements made by the applicant or his representative have been found objectionable by at least two parties. Mr. Whall pointed out the complaint by Ms. Tilton did not apply to the height of the garage and was being met by the lot line adjustment. The complaint submitted by Aft. Schuldt referred to side setback of new and prior additions as well as the shed. He discussed this issue with Mr. Schuldt during the past six months and neither in his complaint nor during these discussions has he indicated that the encroachments have adversely affected the full utilization of his property or his property rights. He noted the north side of Mr. Schuldt's house, which faces the area of concern, does not have any windows or doors and an ungated fence extends north to the property line. Mr. Whall. said the Hearing Examiner also referred to a petition signed by nine neighbors (submitted by Mr. Schuldt) who oppose the approval of the requested variances. W. Whall questioned why the neighbors were now opposed to his request for the variances as the structures were built 5 -7 years ago with no adverse comments at that time or during the interim years. His conversations with those who signed the petition indicated that the 6 inch height violation on the garage and the 1-2 foot side setback on the addition were not the real issue. When they were contacted by Mr. Schuldt and advised the garage was built without City approval and that the setback was in violation of the Code, the real issue to the community was that his son, who lives in the house and was the representative involved in the improvements, "broke the law" and must realize these actions are unacceptable. Due to the conditions upon which the variances were requested and their existence for several years as well as that this had not been an issue until Ms. Tilton's concem, he requested the Council favorably consider the requested variances. Mayor Fahey observed no additional public testimony would be permitted. Mr. Olbrechts said individuals who testified at the original hearing were parties of interest and would have an opportunity to make argument. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 16,1997 Page 7 Peter Schuldt 19812 77th Pla;e st. Edmonds, the property owner to the west� pointed out he and Mr. Whall did not have a discussion indicating this situation was not objectionable to him. He would not have filed a complaint if it was not objectionable. During this process, he researched remodeling that has occurred during recent years without permits and discovered a permit was issued only for the major addition in 1993. He urged the Council to review several drawings he submitted in the original hearing. He noted Ms. Gruwell's recommendation was to deny the variance and the Hearing Examiner also denied the variance. These decisions were based on the Code as well as criteria for a variance that were not met. He questioned whether a precedent would be set if the Hearing Examiner's decision was reversed. He requested the Council carefully review the information presented. 0: Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked what would occur if the denial was upheld. Ms. Gruwell answered LL the applicant would have to reduce the height of the garage by 6 inches. The addition that did not meet 0 the setback would have to be reduced or a lot line adjustment agreed to with Mr. Schuldt. She was uncertain whether Mr. Schuldt had adequate property between his house and the addition to grant a lot line adjustment. 0 - Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked if there was a setback issue on the north property line. Ms. U, Gruwell said it would be in compliance if the garage were detached. �i LU 0 0 LLI U- z D51 1!7t� Councilmember Myers observed if there had been a building permit requested, this information would have been discussed and this problem would not have arisen. Ms. Gruwell agreed, noting the problem with the addition was a result of an inaccurate site plan. Councilmember White asked how the City obtained a site plan. Ms. Gruwell explained the applicant provides a site plan indicating the lot, where the structure will be located, setbacks, and structure height. Councilmember White asked who prepared the site plan. Ms. Gruwell said it is often done by an architect; however, a small addition is often done by the owner. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. COUNCELMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCELMEMBER HAAKENSON, To EXTEND THE DISCUSSION FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Van Hollebeke referred to the Hearing Examiner's conclusions and read two which he felt summarized the process, " 1) Ile applicant and his representative constructed both the addition and the garage. With a better site plan or survey stakes in the ground they could have avoided the need for a side yard setback variance. With a different design, the garage could easily have been made six inches shorter. It appears that the only reason for applying for the variances is that the past actions of the owner or his representative have not been in conformance with the adopted City regulations. Therefore, any special circumstance which exists was self created and is not related to code requirements as they relate to the subject property. No special circumstances due to topography, or size or shape of the lot have been presented by the applicant as reasons why the variance should be granted." and "2) Other property owners in the vicinity are required to meet setbacks and height limits. Although most of the houses in the neighborhood have garages, these are usually either combined with the primary structure and maintain those regulations, or are attached structures which appear to meet regulations." Councilmember Van Hollebeke said he would support the Hearing Examiner's decision. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 16,1997 Page 8 Council President Earling agreed with the comments made by Councilmember Van Hollebeke. He recalled other occasions when an error occurred and adjustment was required to a structure. He also agreed with the Hearing Examiner's decision. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCILMEMBER. VAN HOLLEBEIKE, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED. ayor Fahey welcomed John Wilkins, Olympic Ballet, and his guests from Russia. Mr. Wilkens thanked the City of Edmonds for its support of the arts and the opportunity they provide artists. He said he is a citizen of Edmonds, business owner and also a board member on the South Snohomish Chamber Mof Commerce. He said he believed in regionalism and that the communities should work together. He introduced Valery Anisimov and Irina Piatkina, two artists from Russia who will be dancing in the Olympic Ballet's performance of "The Nutcracker" and invited the Council to attend. Valery Anisimov said this was the fourth time he has been in Edmonds. On previous occasions, he stayed in Edmonds but danced in Everett, Bellevue, and Seattle. He said it was important for the City and artists to have a new theater with a big stage. Irina Piatkina. said she was happy to be in the City. She agreed it would be good to have a new theater here. Mayor Fahey encouraged the public to attend the Olympic Ballet performance at Puget Sound Christian College on Saturday, December 20. She thanked the Olympic Ballet for their performances and the enrichment they provide to the community. 6. ORDINANCE NO, 3179 AMENDING THE 1907 RTTnr.FT AR A REStLT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDI]MUS OF YARIOUS EMS Administrative Services Director Art Housler explained during the year the Council takes action to transfer moneys from one fund to another or increasing expenditures appropriations. Legal audit requirements necessitate the passage of an ordinance. This is done twice a year, in July and again at the end of the year. The proposed ordinance amends the 1997 budget; the increase in appropriations is $944,860. He provided examples of some of these expenditures such as the transfer from all operating funds to the medical self-insurance fund totaling $502,000; fire department labor contract settlement of $63,000; and the replacement of the bucket truck at a cost of $5 1,000. COUNCILMEMEBER. MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, To ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3179, AMENDING THE 1997 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES Or, VARIOUS FUNDS. MOTION oil CARRIED. 7. ORDINANCE NO, 3180 ADO AT, RTMV-V.T ord. #3180 YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1. 1998 Adopt 1998 Budget Administrative Services Director Art Housler explained since the Council received the preliminary budget on November 1, there have been numerous discussions regarding changes to the budget. He explained changes necessary as a result of annexations such as additional staff and additional revenue. He displayed and reviewed 1998 Budget Revisions by Fund. Mayor Fahey noted the revenues from the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 16,1997 Page 9 0 I Lo E I Mr. Housler noted the Council requested a transfer of $120,000 to the Building Repair and Maintenance Fund and instructed staff to reduce the General Fund budget by $100,000. Mr. 01brechts observed an appropriation for the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development (EAED) was included in the proposed budget; this was considered a remote conflict for Councilmember Van Hollebeke under State conflict laws. He explained that Councilmember Van Hollebeke, as an officer of the EAED, was prohibited from influencing the Council's vote on this item. Further, his vote would not count on that budget item. Council President Earling asked if the changes requested at the Council's Special Meeting had been accomplished. Mr. Housler answered yes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCELMEMBER. VAN HOLLEBEEE, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3180, ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinance approved is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3180 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING jANUARY 1, 1998, PROVIDING FOR MONTHLY REVENUE REPORTS AND FUCING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 0111. 113 111 8. ORDINANCE NO, 3181-1998 ALARY. ORDINANCE FOR NON-REPRESEN EIMOYEES 1998 S.I..y Ord. for Non- Community Services Director Paul Mar explained that Exhibit A showed employees who are part of the Repmenwd non -represented group and Exhibit B was the salary schedule. COUNCELMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCELMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEIKE, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3181, THE 1998 SALARY ORDINANCE FOR NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinance approved is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3181 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGES FOR NON-REPRESENTE D EXEMPT PERSONNEL; REPEALING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 3064 AND 3145, THE 1997 SALARY ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR INSURANCE BENEFITS, INCLUDING LUZ AND DISABILITY INSURANCE; AND M(ING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. salary orl 9. APPROVAL OF 1998 SALARY ORDINANCE FOR MAYO forMayor I Community Services Director Paul Mar explained the requested action was an increase in the salary for the Mayor's position from $60,000 annually to $65,000 annually. He explained justification for the increase in salary which included an ordinance passed by the Council in 1994 that indicated a desire to gradually bring the salary into conformance with other jurisdictions as well as provide for a periodic review. This is the first time since that ordinance was passed that the salary has been reviewed, on an annualized basis, the $5,000 increase was a 2.7% annual increase. He said the Council packet also included internal and external salary comparisons, which also justify the increase in the Mayor's salary to $65,000. Edmonds CitY Council APproved Minutes December 16,1997 Page 10 �6 Item #: Man, EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: CLOSED RECORD "PEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY THE APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (DETACHED GARAGE) FROM THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF 15-FEET TO 15-FEET 6-INCHES AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED WEST SIDE SETBACK FROM 7-FEET 6-INCHES TO 5-FEET 6-INCHES TO CORRECT AN ENCROACHMENT FROM A 1992 ADDITION. (AppellanttApplicant: Winston Whall / File Nos. V-97-113 & AP-97-146) (20 Min.) Agenda Time: 20 minutes Agenda Date: December 16,1997 Exhibits Attached: See Attached List Clearances: Departmentlinitials Admin Svcs/Finance City Attorney — City Clerk Court Personnel Fire Police Community Svcs Engineering Parks & Rec PlanninQj§�a—� Public Works Treatment Plant — City Council Mayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Serpices- Public Sq/ety Approvedfor Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council. Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $0 Required: $0 Funding Source: Not Applicable Previous Council Action: Not Applicable Narrative: On October 16, 1997, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on an application by Winston Whall, File No. V-97-113, for a variance to increase the maximum allowed height of an accessory structure (detached garage) from 15 feet to 15.5 feet to allow a structure which was constructed without permits to 0. remain at its current height, and to reduce the required west side setback from 7.5 feet to 5.5 feet to correct an encroachment from a 1992 addition (see Exhibit A of Exhibit 4). Exhibit 3 gives a complete written transcript of the October 16 hearing. On October 30, 1097, the'Hearing Examiner issued his' Findings, Conclusions and Decision to deny the requested application submitted under File No". V-97-113 (see Exhibit 4). On November 12, 1997, Winston G. Whall filed an appeal of the Hearing Examinier's. decision (see Exhibit 2). This is a closed record appeal and the same criteria and findings set forth in the code for the original decision are to be used by City Council. Reconunended Action: Deny,the appeal and uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision -to deny the application for a variance on the subject property, as given in File No. V-97-113 (see Exhibit 4). Alternatively, the Council may choose one of the, f6flowing: 1) Modify the action of the Hearing Examiner, 2) Reverse the action of the Hearing Examiner, or Remand the matter back to the Hearing Examiner for further consideration in accordance with ECDC 20.105.040(E). If you choose to remand it back to the Hearing Examiner, you should specify the items. or issues to be considered and the time frame for completing the additional work. Council Action: A 'ZA EXHIBITS LIST, Z: ME NO AP 97 146. d 0, (1yus L4 .","Vicinity Map Cn U. —0 UJ - 2. �'-Lettdrof.Avbe'al filed b�,Wifist6n'Whall dated: vemb erJ2'L`1997 NO 3. Verbatim TrAnscri t �of the'0666ei 16.� 1 �97, ��c�:,.armg ExAhiii p nerbeanngxegodirig File No. 4. Findings, C6nclusions'!and-D6cisi of the'- Hearin- E reg F. -No.� V on g xammer arding fle. -i97-113, :jj -�(issu ed October 30 1997) OR .7 A.' Planning Divi on soq Report t Si Staff.A�'d�i o the Hearink;Ekiiiiiri6r.kegardin'j� File N6.,V-: 113 (prepared October 1997) :7 U3 Bl. Public Comments folder.L C. Photos 0 *7� LU'W uj� Im -IIIIIA EXHIBIT 1 File No. AP-97-146 November 12, 1997 q RFECEIVED NOV 121997 PERMIT COUNTER Director of Community Services City of Edmonds Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner- Decision No. V-97-113 1). Name of Project Applicant: Winston G. Whall 2). Date of Decision: October 30, 1997 3). Name and address of the person appealing. Winston G. Whall 18336 84th Place West Edmonds, Wa 98026 4). Interest in the matter: Owner 5). The decision of the hearing examiner appears to be based solely on the letter of the code, without consideration of other circumstances. The errors in the const ruction of the garage (height) and the side set setback of the approved addition to the house were acts of omission rather than commission. The proposed variances, as stated by the hearing examiner "will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvement in the vicinity". The hearing examiner makes note of two complaints received regarding the improvements, One complaint states: "Built garage to close to my property line". Nfts Tilton advised me of making this complaint when considering selling her property. She was advised by a real estate agent that the garage was built to close the her property line. She has agreed to a lot fine adjustment, which has been approved, (File LL-97-97). There was no complaint about the height elevation of the garage. The height violation was discovered during the lot fine adjustment procedures. Winston G. Whall 18336 84th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 (425) 774-7103 EXHIBIT 2 0 (page 2) Z The second complaint "Side Setback of additions (New & Prior) as well as Shed" resulted from an, error in construction of the addition. I have discussed this situation with �& Sc'huldt during the past six months. Neither in his complaint nor in these discussions has he indicated that the two - foot encroachment has adversely affected the ffill utilization of his property. This complaint U appears to be based solely on the non-conformance to City Regulations. U4 MI The hearing examiner noted a petition signed by nine (9) neighbors and submitted by W Schuldt 1 t opposed the granting approval of the requested variances. I have contacted signors of this petition and their comments indicated that the 6 inch height violation on the garage and the two -foot Side Setback of the addition.were not the real issue. The 30: Z �_j real issue was the fact that the garage was built without City approval and that my son, who fives 01 in the house and the representative involved in the improvements "broke the IaW' and has to be Ui Wf made to realize that those actions were not acceptable and must be punished. 0 The construction of the garage is now under review by the City Building Department, to a t determine compliance with code. LU Ui LU6. Considering that conditions upon which the variances were requested have existed for several .., Z years and were not an issue within the community until I'Ars Tilton became concerned about the LU effect the garage would have on the sale of her property, I respectffilly ask favorable.' consideration of the requested variances. Z ond Whall i 0. "37", Z T-2,Y175M.F �7,777gfgnl;g Eq-777-73 MwLl 0 g Meg Gruwell: I am Meg Gruwell giving the staff report for the City today. The first report is a request by Winston Whall. His location is 19808 — 77h Place West. He -s requesting a variance to allow him to increase the maximum allowed height of an accessory structure (a detached garage) from 15 feet to 151/2 feet and to reduce the required west side setback from 7V2 feet to 5V2 feet to correct an encroachment from a 1992 addition. I would like to enter the staff report as Exhibit A. Since we sent you the staff report, we have also received a file that we will call Exhibit B and a collection of photos in three envelopes, which I would like to enter as Exhibit C. Ms. Gruwell: The lot itself is a fairly level lot. It is wedged shaped at an end of a cul-de-sac. There is currently a lot line adjustment that has been approved by the City, but has not yet been recorded. That is to correct a setback problem on the cast side of the garage. The garage was constructed without permits. The deadline for appeals on the lot line adjustment was October 9, and there were no appeals. It is clear for them to go ahead and record the lot line adjustment. But, until that is recorded the east side setback is not maintained, I also wanted to clarify that the reason they are having to go with a 15 foot setback is that they are considering the garage to be detached. Currently it is attached to the house with a breezeway. As an attached garage, it could have a 25 foot height limit, but then it would have to maintain a 15 foot rear setback. The applicants are intending to remove the breezeway so that it will be a detached garage, which then we would allow a 5 foot rear setback, but it falls under the 15 foot height limit. Ms. Gruwell: The applicant has submitted declarations, and one of the things they have included as part of LU U) U — P = that is that with their 1993 addition, they had excavated some dirt for the foundation. That pile of dirt had 0 obscured the property line. When they determined that it looked like it was getting too close to the property Z line, they actually made a little jog in the forms so that it would not be as close to the property line. I have been told, since I wrote the report, that the surveyor has been out and that it is 5;6 feet to the property line. Mr. McConnell: It is 51/2 feet from the side property line. We could ask the applicant to just confirm that. Mr. McConnell: Are you talking the side or the rear property line? JMs. Gruwell: The side T_ Ms. Gruwell: Yes. As far as my conclusions on whether the application meets the criteria, basically, the applicant or his representative have constructed both the addition and the garage. If they had had a survey stake in place or if the site plan had been more accurate, they could have avoided the need for a setback variance. I am sure it would have been fairly straightforward to design the garage so that it wouldn't have needed the 6 inch variance. Basically, there have been no circumstances presented as far as the topography or the size or shape of the lot, It is strictly just to maintain a structure that was built, in one case without permits, and in the other case with a permit that didn't show exactly where it was located. As far as it being detrimental, it will not be significantly detrimental, but we have received two complaints --one on either side of the structure. Both complaints have indicated that the improvements have been objectionable to them. It does not appear to be the minimum variance necessary in order to allow the owner property rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. Basically, it is the minimum to allow the development to stand as it was built. Staff, therefore, recommends denial in this case, based on the statements of fact, conclusions and attachments to the report. If you should decide otherwise, I have also listed proposed conditions. Verbatim Transcripts ofHearing Examiner Hearing File No. V-97-113 (Wimton Whall. Applicant) Hearing Date., October 16,1997 Hearing Examiner. RonMcConnell Page I EXHIBIT 3 Mr. Whall: My name is Winston G. Whall, and I live at 19336 — 84d'Place, Edmonds, WA 98026. At the onset, I wish to state that the two violations contained in the planning division advisory report are correct. The conditions are not in compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). First, if I may, I would like to discuss the variance request to increase the maximum height of the garage from 15 feet to 15% feet. The height limit increase of 6 inches will still be lower than the roofline of the family dwelling that was approved in the 1993 addition. This increase does not block the view of adjacent property owners. I might add that the complaint that Meg referred to about the garage only states that the garage was placed too close to the property line at the time it was built. However, in talking to Mrs. Tilton, who is the property owner on the side, she advised me back in January that she was thinking about selling the place, and as a result she had a real estate man come out. This particular individual mentioned to her that she would have trouble selling it with the garage that close. That is when she filed a complaint regarding the garage being too close to the property line. There was no question at that time about the height and elevation. Mr. Whall: Now to discuss the variance request to reduce the west side setback from the required 71/2 feet to 51/2 feet. The background regarding the requested variance is contained in my declarations which are I-- Attachment 3 of the advisory report, and as outlined at the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5 of the staff advisory report. Errors, not intentional, were made in the construction of the addition in 1993. In I.- Z mitigation, I would like to point out that the reduction of the west side setback from 7V1 feet to 51/2 feet has Ui UJ! 2 :D� had no adverse affect on the adjacent property owner's total use of his property over the last four years. The north side of his house, which faces the area in question, does not have any windows or doors. The L area is in lawn and shrubs. A fence from his house, without a gate, extends northward from the corner of 0 0 != the house. In other words, it is not an access to the rear area. The 5% foot setback is adequate for residents W LU �41 of my property to have full access their area. The 2 foot reduction in the side setback does not restrict any x U. r �� view from the adjacent property. At the present time there is a 12 foot space between the two dwellings r-11 where if necessary, emergency personnel could reach the rear areas. This would appear to be an adequate 3;1 14 LU fn�. space. While it is recognized that we must have laws and codes to manage our well being, they sometimes are not all encompassing. For example, in the case at hand, the straight-line distance between the northeast comer of the adjacent property owner's house and the property line is only 61/2 feet. I regret the 0 inconvenience that my errors may have caused my neighbors and the City of Edmonds. I ask your approval of my request for a variance. If approved, I will conform to the conditions stated in Number IV of the advisory report and go and sin no more. Thank you sir. Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Who else would like to speak on this issue? Mr. Schuldt: My name is Peter Schuldt. I live at 19802 — 77" Place West. I am the property owner to the west Mr. Whall. of I would just like to go on public record as having been present during this hearing. Since the City has recommended that the variance not be approved, I will not take up any more valuable time. 01 Mr. McConnell: Anyone else wanting to speak on this issue? Ms. Gruwell: I would just like to add that the reason we picked up on the difference in height is when the permits were subraitted for the garage. That is when we discovered that instead of it being 15 feet, it was 15Y2 feet. He is correct, that we did not get a complaint on that. It was a staff discovery. Mr. Schuldt: I could sit here and just continue with this questioning and answers, but I am not going to. If the hearing examiner has any particular concerns, he can ask me, Mr. McConnell: I have been out and looked at the property. I even went to the apartments behind and looked at the fence. I do look at these things carefully. I look at the staff report, too. This is the Ver6atim Transcripts ofBearing Examiner Hearing File No. V-97-113 (Winston Whalk Applicant) Hearing Date October 146,1997 Hearing Examiner. RorMcConnell Page 2 V ,:ago, Opportunity for the neighbors and the' 'applicant to, speak. I am just here to listen and look at each ca I se separately. Mr. Schuldt: There is another issue with regards to the encroachment of the garage on the east side. I brought that up in the information I supplied to Meg and also to you with regards to my opposition I to this. That is the north property line where the setback required is 5 feet. There has not been a survey done that actually determined ... Mr. McConnell: You are talking about behind the garage? Mr. Schuldt: That is correct. Mr. McConnell: I looked back there. I looked over the fence. Mr. Schuldt: 'Mere has not been an actual survey of that property line. If one was to scale off that print, the actual setback is 4 feet 8 inches which is still less than the five feet required. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Mr. Schuldt: I have one other question. Since there has been the recommendation that the two variances be rejected. What are the steps and what happens next? Mr. McConnell: I take a look at it. After I look at everything that has been presented and take it all under consideration, I make a determination. If I agree with the staff then the garage needs to be modified. If I don't, I will take a look at the staff recommended conditions and either accept those and list those conditions and the applicant will have to comply with those conditions, or I will develop some other conditions. Anybody who is a party of record at this hearing and who does not agree with what I do can appeal to the City Council. The City Council can uphold my decision or overturn my decision. I make a decision, but that decision can be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Schuldt: I understand that process. Would these violations need to be corrected? Mr. McConnell: If I agree with the staff, yes. If I don't agree with the staff and nobody, appeals it then no. I have to look at this and put on blinders, if you will, and say, "Does he meet the criteria that I have to review or does he not?" I look at each one of these. Oftentimes, these are not black and white issues. They are different shades of gray. I am hired by the City as an independent contractor. I do this in a number of towns and am not a City of Edmonds employee. I have to write a report after each hearing. It is my job to be the independent person with no ax to grind and no baggage or anything. I have to follow City policy. I don't make policy. That is the City Council's job. Mr. Schuldt: I have taken a lot of time in presenting those materials, so I ask that you at least take some time to read it. Mr. McConnell: I read everything, believe me. Mr. Schuldt: Thank you for your time. Mr. McConnell: Mr. Whall, do you want to say anything further? Mr. Whall: No sir. Mr. McConnell: Meg, anything further? Ms. Gruwell: No. Verbatim Transcripts of Hearing Examiner Hearing File No. V-97-113 (Winston Whall. Appficans) Hearing Date. October 16, 1997 Hearing Examiner. Ron McConnall Page 3 Mr. McConnell:: All right, it that is the case, I will close the hearing and I.will look, at everypece'o and photograph before nie., If I &el fneed4b 'I will, 96 back onc, bok at, the propefty:again.' I will have and I awn n deterniination out within two weeks..,As I noted, anybody that does not like whit I d c 0 an appe to the City Council z HE971016 (CM UYU. -0 Ui LL"I Z.JE z UA W1 5�q 4 0 Uj W . . . . . . . . . . . . �YvbadmTranscdptrqfHeadhSE=m ArBradng File No.,V-97-113 (ftwon RWA- Hearing Date.-: Od�ber 16, -1997 Hearing Examiner. 'Pm McConn*U' Page 4� CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 260 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 0 (206) 771-0220 0 FAX (206) 771-022 1 1 MAYOR HEARING EXAMINER 'C'St. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EiAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Winston Whall CASE NO.: V 97-113 LOCATION: 19808 77h Place West APPLICATION: A variance to increase the maximum allowed height of an accessory structure (detached garage) of 15 feet to 15.5 feet and to reduce the required west side setback from 7.5 feet to 5.5 feet to correct an encroachment from a 1992 addition (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts pdblic hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES-. a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILy RESIDENTIAL _ Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Develop I ment Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Deny Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny PU13LIC 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 9:00 am., October 16, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:20 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. EXHIBIT 4 * Incorporated August u, 1890 * Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-113, Page 2 HEAPJNG CO MMENTS: The following is a summary of tfielcommentsoffered at-the,.public, hearing. From the City: Meg Gruwell, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report (E xhibit A), and., recommended denial of the request for a variance, She noted • The house and garage are currently attached, but applican'twill remove the breezeway. • The side property line on the west side of the property is approximately 5' 67' from the house. The garage is 6",too tall and the.need for a'height Variance could have been avoided if the applicant had paid attention. The variances do not appear to be the nuniniumi Variance necessary. From the Applicant: Winston Whall, applicant, said: The two violations are correct and the conditions are not in compliance. with the code. Regarding the height variance: • The 15' 6" high garage will still be lower than;the'house. • No views will be blocked by the additional,6". he I ight. • The complaint which was filed was only regarding the garage being too close to the property line. Regarding the 2' setback variance: The errors were not intentional and were made during construction'. 0 The adjacent property owner has, had no impact to the use of his'property- 0 There are no windows or doorson that side of.the neighbors house. 0 Twelve feet exists between the two dwellings it this,tirne'.1 0 The straight line distance between the n6ighbori-h6use, and the pro� line is 6' 6" Hearing Examiner Decision, Case No. V 97-113 Page 3 He will comply with the conditions recommended by staff if the variances are approved and he will go and sin no, more. Fiorr i the'Corrumnity: Peter Schuldt, neighbor, subn-dtted several photographs of the subject I property and of neighboring properties (Exhibit C) and a folder of information (Exhibit B) which included: A petition signed by 9 neighbors opposed to granting approval of the requested variances, Background on the plat and zoning in the area, !e Private plat restrictions for Sandalwood #2, Enlarged maps showing the locations of improvements and additions which were constructed by the applicant over time. (He alleged that many of the improvements or, additions were done without permits and he alleged that several of the improvements or addition's are located within the required setback areas), Responses to the variance criteria and to the applicant,s application information, and Site plan for proposed addition of 984 square feet which shows an 8' 6" setback instead of the 5' 6" setback which apparently exists. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Size: The subject Property was created at 10,502 square feet, and after an approved lot line adjustment is recorded, it will be 10,739 square feet. It is a wedge-shaped lot at the end of a cul-de-sac (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a detached single-family residence. 3) Zoning: The subject property is located 'in a single-family residential zone and is zoned RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) Terrain and Vegetation: The site is relatively level, with a sl , i grade change at the east and west property line, and,is landscaped with, grass, shrubs and trees. keariniExaminer Decision Case No. V 97-113 Page 4 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a,. Facts: 1) The properties to the south, east, and west are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-8) and are developed with single-family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 2)� The property to the north is zoned.Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) and is developed with condominiums and apa I rtments (se I e, Exhibit A,. Attachment 1). B- -STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (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 20.153 (Critical Areas Ordinance). 2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-97-98) 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-8 Zoning Standards a. Facts: 1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining t6Residential development in the RS-8 zone is set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. These include the following for locating structures: Street Setback: 25 feet Rear Setback: 15 feet (5 feet for detached accessory structures covering less than 600 square feet, and less than 15 feet tall) Side Setbacks: 7.5 feet Maximum Height: 25 feet Lot Coverage: 35% 2) The applicant has applied for and the city has approved a lot line adjustment (File ' LL-97-97) which will move the property line so that a 7.5-foot setback will be maintained between the east side of the house and the east side property line. The deadline for appeals is October 1 9, 1997. If there are no appeals, then the owners can proceed to have the lot line adjustment recorded by the County Auditor so that it will take I Z- ul LL U 8 Z Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-113 Page. 5 effect. Without the lot line adjustment, the garage does not maintain the required east side setback. 3) The garage is also currently attached to the house with a breezeway. Attached garages may be up to 25 feet tall, but must maintain a 15-foot setback to the rear property line. The applicant is proposing to remove the breezeway between the garage and the house in order to have it considered a detached accessory building. Detached accessory buildings need only maintain a 5-foot rear setback, if they are less than 600 square feet in area and less than 15 feet tall. b. Conclusion: If the lot line adjustment is recorded, and if the breezeway is removed, then the proposal will comply with the requirements of the RS-8 zoning standards except for the height for the garage and west side setback of the house. The variance would have to be approved for it to meet those requirements. 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance a. Facts: 1) 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. The criteria 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 properties in the 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 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 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) Comprehensive 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 condidonally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. -6, -1 J-.Zv." *Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-! 113 Page 6 (e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the ow ' ner rights enjoyed by other properties in Z the vicinity with the same zoning. 2) The'applicant has submitted declarations. with his submittal which La address the decisional criteria, as foil (See Exhibit A, Attachment ows 3):- U1 X LL —0 (a) Regarding the west side setback, the applicant had plans approved UJ in 19,93 for an addition. The dirt excavated for the addition was piled on the west side of the property, which obscured the exact property line. A line of sight reading indicated that the proposed D) C) :C id. addition would be too close to the property line, so ajog in the forms was made before the foundation was poured. After the addition was constructed, it was determined that the actual setback LU W was only 5.25 to 6 feet from the property line. Regarding the 2 =) :). 0 height of the garage, the garage was constructed at 6 inches above U W the allowed height, and the height is comparable to the roofline on 0— the existing family structure. UA X (b) The height of the garage would not be a special privilege, states the U- .. ZI applicant, as other properties in the area continue to have access to UJ W, L) -F similar structures. Regarding the setback, it would not infringe 81 upon the rights of the adjacent property owner, as the distance Z between the two houses is 15 feet 4 inches and f s open space with lawn and shrubs according to the applicant. (c) The applicant feels that both variances will comply with the Comprehensive Plan as the use of the area is residential, and that it complies with the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. (d) The applicant states that the variances will have no adverse affect on the public health, safety and welfare of the property or adjacent 6 dwellings in the vicinity. (e) The side setback variance (1-5 to 2 feet) is necessary to permit the full utilization of the property as allowed other properties in the area, states the applicant. The garage height variance will allow the owner to utilize the property in a manner comparable to other residents in the area. 3) The plan submitted for the 1993 addition,. which was approved by the Building Department, showed the new addition maintaining an 8.5 foot setback to the west side property line. ,7 KTRi," X, 0:� Nm ==MM AI, .2 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-113 Page 7 4) The garage was constructed without the necessary building permits. The survey submitted shows that the garage as built only maintains a five-foot setback to the rear property line. The garage currently has a breezeway attaching it to the main house. In order to meet the required rear setback, the applicant has proposed to take off the breezeway, since a detached structure less than 600 square feet in size need only maintain a five-foot setback. As a detached accessory building, it is required to meet the 15-foot height limit. 5) The Planning Department received complaints about the setback of the garage, which is being dealt with through a lot line adjustment (file LL-97-97), and a complaint about the setback of the addition on the west side of the property. The complaints are in file ZE-97-6. b. Conclusions: 1) The applicant and his representative constructed both the addition and the garage. With a better site plan or survey stakes in the ground they could have avoided the need for a side yard setback variance. With a different design, the garage could easily have been made six inches shorter. It appears that the only reason for applying for the variances is that the past actions of the owner or his representative have not been in conformance with the adopted City regulations. Therefore, any special circumstance which exists was self created and is not related to code requirements as they relate to the subject property. No special circumstances due to topography, or size of shape of the lot have been presented by the applicant as reasons why the variance should be granted. 2) Other property owners in the vicinity are required to meet setbacks and height limits. Although most of the houses in the neighborhood have garages, these are usually either combined with the primary structure and maintain those regulations, Or are attached structures which appear to meet regulations. 3) The proposed use is residential, which is in conformance with the comprehensive plan (see also Section E below). Except for the variances requested, as proposed the application meets the intent of the zoning ordinance. 4) The proposed variances will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvement in the vicinity. However, as the submittal of two complaints demonstrates, the improvements made by the applicant or his representative have been found objectionable by at least two parties. 5) The proposed variance is not the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other Properties in the vicinity with the same, zoning. Rather, the proposed variances are the minimum variances 'k _M MT" T -M IDME, OHearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-113 Page 8 needed to legalize existing additions which were built in contradiction with adopted codes. D. TECHMCAL COMMTEE L Review by City Departments a. Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division. The only comments received we re from the Engineering Division, who stated that the owner would have to pave their driveway in accordance with the ECDC and comply with the terms of any future permits. b. Conclusion: The applicant will need to comply with the terms of any future permits, as required by the Engineering Division. E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) I - Comprehensive Plan Designation a. Fact: The subject property appears to be designated as "Multi Family High Density" residential on the comprehensive plan's bubble diagrams. b. Conclusion: The proposed development is not inconsistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 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. I ) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "ffigh 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 additions have harmonized with the architecture of the existing house and area. The jog which was created to meet the perceived setback was probably the portion of the project least in keeping with the design. The smaller setbacks, however, are not in keeping with the area. In general, the proposed variances are consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the requ . est for a height variance and a setback variance is denied. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-113 Page 9 Entered this 30th day of October, 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 Examiner RECONSIDERATION'S 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 applicant 0 and the date of the decision, the name and address 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 fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.85.020.0 states '7he approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application." Hearing xaminer D i i ecision.. Case No. V 971-113, Page NOTICE TO THE couNTV ASSESSOR. The.property owner may �as'a result of the decisi on ren,deii d, by, theRearifig Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the S : n0homish Co un . t y Assessors Office. M C) EXMIT& LAS (4: �j The following exhibit were offered entered into'the.record. and —0 Uj A,.', Planning Division Advis ory Report B. Public Comments folder CTO) ec; C. Photos (3 envelolies) Uj Ui PARTEES OFIRECORD: UU) 0— Winston 0. Whall EdmondsPlafinin Divis Ui -9, —ion 840 Place West Edm onds Engineering 'Di i i ivision Edmonds, WA 98026 U- Peter Schuldt 19812 71th' PL W Edmonds, WA'98626 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From: 7.1-Y M.E. Wg'Oruwell Project Planner Date: OCTOBER 8,1997 File: V-97-113 WINSTON WHALL Hearing Date, Time, And Place: October 16. 1997, 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. STATE ENvtRoNmENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) ............................................................................................ 3 C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 3 D ' TECHNICAL COMMITTEE .................................................. 0 .................................................................. 6 E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) .................... I ............................ 6 Ill. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS ........................................ o 6 A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION .......................................................................... 7 B. APPEALS 7 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ...................................................................... 7 V- NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR .......................... o ...... o 7 VL ATTACHMENTS ........................................ o .................... 7 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD ................................................................................ 7 EXHIBIT A 'OF EXHIBIT 4 V-97-113-DOC October 8, 1997 Staff Report -7:777777- Winston Whill AM6 File No. V-97-113 Paige 2 of 7 INTRODUCTION A. Application I. Avolicant: Winston G. Whall (see Attachm6tit 2j. 2. Site Location: 19808 - 77th Place W. (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: A variance to increase the maximum allowed height of a I n accessory structure (detached garage) of 15 feet to 15.5 feet and to reduce the required west side setback from 7.5 feet to 5.5 feet to correct an encroachment from a 1992 addition (see Attachments 2 through 4.1 Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. Maior Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENUAL - Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend DENIAL of this application. If the Hearing Examiner wished to approve:the application, we 'would recornmend the I following. conditions: 1. The west side setback of the residence shall be no less than 5.5 feet, as shown on the survey map site plan (see Attachment 4). 2. The height of the garage shall be no higher than 15.5 feet, as shown on the elevations (see Attachment 4). 3. The breezeway between the house and garage shall be removed 'to obtain adequate rear setbacks. 4. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in. the Ed . monds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. S. 7be applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any construction. 6. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. 7. The permit should be transferable. 8. Lot line adjustment LL-97-97 must be recorded before the east side setback will be in confortnance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property was created at 10,502 square f I eet, and after an approved lot line adjustment is recorded, it will be 10,739 square feet. It is a wedge-shaped lot at the end of a cul-de-sac (see Attachment 4). V-97-113.DOC/ October8,1997 Smff Report Winston Whall File No. V-97-113 Pop 3 of 7 (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a detached single- family residence. (3) Zoning: The subject property is located in a single-family residential zone and is zoned RS-8 (see Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Veretation: The site is relatively level, with a slight grade change at the east and west proper I ty line, and.is landscaped with grass, shrubs and trees. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The properties to the south, east, and west are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS- 8) and are developed with single-family homes (see Attachment 1). (2) The property to the north is zoned Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) and is developed with condominiums and apartments (see Attachment 1). 'State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA r eview (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080), C. Edmonds Conununity Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Critical Areas Compliance a) Facts: (1),, This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.B I (Critical Areas Ordinance). (2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-97-98) 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-8 Zoning Standards a) Facts: (1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential de I velopment in the RS-8 zone is set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. These include the following for locating structures: (a) Street Setback: 25 feet (b) Rear Setback: 15 feet (5 feet for detached accessory structures covering less than 600 square feet, and less than 15 feet tall) (c) Side Setbacks: '7.5 feet (d) Maximum Height: 25 feet (e) Lot Coverage: 35% (2) The applicant has applied for and the city has appro ved a lot line adjustment (File LL-97-97) which will move the property line. so that a 7.5-foot setback will be maintained between the east side of the house and the east side property line. The deadline for appeals is October 9, 1997.1 If there are no appeals, then the'owners can proceed to have the lot line adjustment recorded by the County Auditor so that it will take effect. Without the lot line adjustment, the garage does not maintain the required east side setback. V-91. I 13-DOC October 8,1997 Staff ltej�� Winston Whall File No. V-97-113 Page 4 of 7 (3J The garage is also currently attached to the house with a breezeway. Attached garages may be up to 25 feet tall, but must maintain a 15-foot setback, to the rear property line. The applicant is proposing to remove the breezeway between the garage and the house in order to have it considered a detached accessory building. Detached accessory buildings need only maintain a 54bot rear setback, if they are less than 600 square feet in area and less than 15 feet tall. b) Conclusiort If the lot line adjustment is recorded, and if the breezeway is removed, then the proposal will comply with the requirements of the RS-,8 zoning standards except -for the height for the garage and west side setback of the house. The variance would have to be approved for it to meet those requirements. I Compliance with Requirements for a Variance a) Facts: (1) 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. The criteria 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 properties in the 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 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 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) Comprehensive Plan and Zonin-g 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 approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and. welfare 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) Regarding the west side setback, the applicant had plans approved in 1993 for an addition. The dirt excavated for the addition was piled on the west side of the property, which obscured the exact property line. A line of sight reading indicated that the proposed addition would be too close to the property line, so a jog in the forms was made before the foundation was poured, After the addition was constructed, it was determined that the actual setback was only 5.25. to 6 feet from the property line. Regarding the height of the garage, the garage was constructed at 6 inches above the V-97-113.DOC October 8, 1997 Staff Report Winston Whall File No. V-97-113 Page 5 of 7 allowed height, and the height is Comparable to the roofline on the existing family structure. (b) The height of the garage would not be a special privilege, states the applicant, as other properties in the area continue to have access to similar structures. Regarding the setback, it would not infringe upon the rights of the adjacent property owner, as the distance between the two houses is 15 feet 4 inches and is open space with lawn and shrubs according to the applicant. (c) The applicant feels that both variances will comply with the Comprehensive Plan as the use of the area is residential, and that it complies with the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. (d) The applicant states that the variances will have no adverse affect on the public health, safety and welfare of the property or adjacent dwellings in the vicinity. (e) The side setback variance (1.5 to 2 feet) is necessary to permit the full utilization of the property as allowed other properties in the area, states the applicant. The garage height variance will allow the owner to utilize the property in a manner Comparable to other residents in the area. (3) The plan submitted for the 1993 addition, which was approved by the Building Department, showed the new addition maintaining an 8.5 foot setback to the west side property line. (4) The garage was constructed without the necessary building permits. The survey submitted shows that the garage as built only maintains a five-foot setback to the rear property line. The garage currently has a breezeway attaching it to the main house. In order to meet the required rear setback, the applicant has proposed to take off the breezeway, since a detached structure less than 600 square feet in size need only maintain a five-foot setback. As a detached accessory building, it is required to meet the 15-foot height limit. (5) The Planning Department received complaints about the setback of the garage, which is being dealt with through a lot line adjustment (file LL-97-97), and a complaint about the setback of the addition on the west side of the property. The complaints are in file ZE-97-6. b) Conclusions: (1) The applicant and his representative constructed both the addition and the garage. With a better site plan or surveyed stakes in the ground they could have avoided the need for a side yard setback variance. With a different design, the garage could easily have been made six inches shorter. It appears that the only reason for applying for the variances are that the past actions of the owner or his representative have not been in conformance with regulations. No other special circumstances due to topography, or size of shape of the lot have been presented as reasons why the variance should be granted. (2) Other property owners in the vicinity are required to meet setbacks and height limits. Although most of the houses in the neighborhood have garages, these are usually either combined with the primary structure and maintain those regulations, or are attached structures which appear to meet regulations. (3) The proposed use is residential, which is in conformance with the comprehensive plan (see also Section E below). Except for the variances requested, as proposed the' application meets the intent of the zoning ordinance. V-97-113.DOC October 8, 1997 Staff Report Winston Whall File No. V-97-113 Page 6 of 7 (4) The proposed variances will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvement in the vicinity. However, as the subrrlittal of two complaints demonstrates, the improvements made by the applicant or his representative have been found objectionable by at least two parties. (5) The proposed variance is not the minimum necess I ary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.with the same zoning. The proposed variance is only the minimum variance that will allow the proposed development to continue as it was built. 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, and the Parks and Recreation Division. The only comments received were from the Engineering Division, who stated that the owner would have to pave their driveway in accordance with the ECDC and comply with the terms of any future permits. Ib) Conclusion: Ile applicant will need to comply with the terms of any future permits, as required by the Engineering Division. E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The subject property appears to be designated as 'Multi Family - High Density' residential on the comprehensive plan's bubble diagrams. b) Conclusion: The proposed development is not inconsistent 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. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "ffigh 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 additions have harmonized with the architecture of the existing house and area. Ile jog which was created to meet the perceived setback was probably the portion of the project least in keeping with the design. The smaller setbacks, however, are not in keeping with the area. In general, the proposed variances are consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City. Ill. RECONSIDERATION'S 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. V-IYI- I 13.DOC/ October 8.1997/ Staff Report 772- 0"A Winston Whall File No. V-97-113 Pqe 7 of7 Request for. Rec onsWration. .,Sec�ozi, 20.100-010.0 allows for the He 0 aring Examiner to, r6c nsider his decision or z r,ecomme.ndation if a YA itten request is filed within ten (10) world ng days of the date of the initial ::.decision, by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testiniony'or be any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of landwhich is the subject of such decision oi,recommendation., The rec onsideration request must cite, specific s.to the findings and/or the criteria contained in th ordinances governing' the type of reference .J application be' I 'ed. e ing rev e Appeals MAL —0 Section 20.105.020.�Ik I& B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or LU recommendation �shall e made, , The appeal shall be made in writin and shall include the 2, �i 91 decision being appealed along with the name of the project applicant and the date of the decision, the L name and address of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, Co . C) and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the, being appeitled.1 Z IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL 25 Section 20.85.020.0 states 'rhe �,pproved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for 0— an'extension of the time before th 1 expi i ca I-- I hation and the city approves the application." V. N P OTICE TO TBE CO NTY ASSESSOR LL 0 The property . owner may as a resu�t of the decision rendered z by the Hearing Examiner request a change in LU the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. 0 VI. ATTACEMENTS I. Vicinity Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Declarations of the Applicant 4. Site Plan & Elevations VII. PARTIES 'OF RECORD Winston 0. Whall Engineering Division 18336 - 84th Place W. Edmonds, WA 98026 V-0-1 IIDOC October S. 1997 SmIT Re�oii' X, I 1 11'' 01 M M IN 11-1 z F- UJI LJJ -j U Of a .: Lui uj Cn U.1 0' -Vicinity and Zoning Map, -L Attachment I 7 ... . . . .... A 0- it C ty ot e( ))honds L; AV P41 L JK use application FERMIU)�P'�:' ioco'ulyl _Lland 11'''I poll, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD C3 COMP PLAN AMENDMENT z 1 If .1 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE# ZONE L3 HOME OCCUPATION 0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION DATE REC'D BY Ul El SHORT SUBDIVISION F El LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT EE ------RECEIPT# 0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DATE Lul ;ARING OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT LU HE STREET VACATION E3 STAFF Q PB 0 ADB Q CC LCL) UJ 13 RF70NE El SHORELINE PERMIT 2 � _J I Q VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE ACTION TAKEN: 01 U_ <1 EXCE (21 OTHE 0 APPROVED El DENIED C3 APPEALED D APPEAL#— z P-i� 0-� LU LW Applicant v) s �o k1h a Phone Address �U* 91M 0 t4 S 0;- a _W4 Property Address or Location/f rdf- _77t' "r'/ IVI s _7 601m, 1 .1 L-1 LU UJ PropertyOwner %5aM( 4:6 e41r1P11C4v11 Phone U_ 61 zi, — vv Address X Agent Phone z Address Tax Acc X0 - 0 6 0 - S1,2 - 490 c Sec. Twp.;2 7W Rng. Legal Description Details of Project or Proposed Use __.5c C 41 z:0 7 14 144-i lnee A rd d 4--1 0 674,"I�e gym Szrl-A .4t'h Lo 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 C4 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 false, misleading, Inaccurate or Incomplete information furnished by the applicant his/ her/ b 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 application Attachment 2 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT 0 R, -0- 1 owing III I 7. September 23, 1997 lwemor�:ndum: to the Planning, Department, City of Edm nds. 0 Request a v'ariAnce,be granted to the requirement for a 71 f oo& setback from the property. line to 5*,feet on. the west side of the single femily residence located at 19808 - 77th Place Wtist--, Edmonds'. (see attached sketch) In '1993 plans were approved for an adrii.tion to be made to the existing house. . During the., Xcavation for the ,,.Loundation, dirt was piled on the west side of the property, thus obscuring the exact property line. When the foundation forms were in place, prior to pour- in- the cement,, a line of sight reading indicated that the southwest corner of the addition would be too close to the property line. A revision was made (see jog in the attached plan) and the foundation forms as presently showne However, once the addition was completed, and the landscaping completed, it was determined that the actual setbick was ;nlY 5i to 6 feet from the property line. The granting ofJ this variance would not infringe upon the rights and privilages of the adjacent property owner. The distr-nee between the two houses.is 15�feet 4 incbes and is open sp--,ce - lawns. nd shrubs. There is no effect on the view or vegetation. There Pre no strepms', pands or wildlife habitate in the area.. The approval of the variance will be cqnsistent with the comDrehensive and zoning ordinance - single family swellinis in a residential area. The granting of this variance will have no -adverse affect anzthe public health, safety and welfare of the property,. or adjacent dwellings in the vicinity. The approval of this minimum variance (li to 2 feet) would permit the utilization of the property as allowed other properties in the are4. Respectfull b i Y su mij�ted. 4f�nsto—n halm G. hall 12 G _LN89-06-36-W ELI 00��, 154.81'(NEW) EL. 99.80T— N13*16'37*W BREEZEWAY * EK. 27.OW E (TO BE REMOVED) W E L. 1010.36 E3991,SA— VA-" N3624*12*E 886 OLD T LINE I p (NO-21'24*E 99.53� d z-� D-45*31'33* L-39.7.S(OLD) 0-4379*11" L-37,95*(NEW) BENCHMARK FOR — HEIGHT CALC. TOP DISK CONC. MON. EL-100,00 \(ASSUMED) LEGAL DesWOMON CALCULAnoNS LOT 12, SANDALWOOD NO. 2. AS PER PLAT GARAGE COR. ELEVS. RECORED IN VOLUME la OF PLATS, PAGE 68, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY. 100.36 WASHINGTON. 99.93 og.ao SCALE:I*-3W 7400-20/4-100.05 MEAN 0. 25'-125.05 mAx ROOF PEAK EXIST. ROOF PEAK IS 115.65 HEIGHT CALCULA-noN FOR LWAIC MAI L41LJ A if I Affachment 4 PIPBLilb:C'oMM`ENTS DER" EXH[BIT B OF EXHIBIT4 us LAA LA Lui 'WT Lu JU �"U",CJE7 C"GXJ r U) �rAAMI k0Z. g U, §1 g.rlL- \.�'3 uj uj LU �+EArn M' (I:, Ate Lu, RECEiVED CT 11 S 97 PERMT CoUt jLn U.� ... 0 October 14,1997 Re.- In. response to Notice of Developmentof Application , File # V-974MO I 13 To: Meg Gruwell, et at. We, the undersigned, hereby state, that from a period prior to 1M, to the PreSento that the principle dwelling located at 198M 77* Pin I ce Wes4 Edmonds Washington has received major modification and/ or renovation, including, bat not limited to, construction of a two car garage, and the addition of a L n upper level structure that was built atop the existing dwelling. These changes have been visually observed by the undersigned residents as evidenced by the addresses of the signators below. Furthermore, upon review of the applicants information, as stated in the Notice of Application, dated October 2, 1997, we strougly'discourage any and all approval of variance(s) to this property or dwelling, V - �'-r 0, R W. 7� 6r.' P e," 3 71 t Notice of Development Application & Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Date of Notice: October 2, 1997 5 File # V-97-113 Pe lt�'. .0 Name of Applicant: Winston Whall Requested Permits 0 a L Date of Applicatiom., August 28, 1997 and Approvals:., Variance 0 Ic Application Complete:.... 'Z September 25,1997 Other Required Permits Project Location: 19808 Mh Pl, W., Edmonds not yet applied for (if known):., ............... . Unknown Z Project Description: Variance to increase the maximum Required Studies related permitted height of an accessory to the prcject:....­­.­ Unknown structure (detached Garage) from the maximum permitted height of 15-g to Related Environmental Critical Areas Checklist 15,51 & to reduce the required met Documents:.. side setback from 7.5-ft to 6.5-ft to ct a. encivamlariam from a 1992 Public Comments Due:.. Oct 16,1997 by 9:00 A.M. addition. The subject property is z.cod RS-8. City Contact: Meg Gruwell 0 U r t n a low [)are: October 16, 1997 Time: 9:00 A.M. Place: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St, Edmonds Information on this development application can be vievved or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Dope t� 121 5th Averme North, Edirmads, WA 98020. (425)771-0220. Public comments should also be sciatto this addre.�.m" The decifien on this develep i,at qopliecd­ ivill be hjdf� ilithin 120 ddys of the dr. df die additional inicri-flon Note 'ejoe'a., that ability to gpi ad/ a d�eisroj The removal, mutilation, des truction, or c oneernalent of this This notice may be removed Warning! notice before the hearing date Is a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. after Oct. 16_1997 21 TaLCYPNsi 9�JT k\ao. -2- Sladli IDPiLL- 45 'RErWTS120� OWPLArTGD -i Ul R CATS Cf5 P, LU tui cn U. I L) i L T*' LU MA U. 9.1 � QM4 .1 TECT 4c 1377Lfm 9) jq( ul UJI ISM! 501 w 1PO�OTe=LfS tOVENAWT,;' 1739 2-S OZ- APP-tL M60 rT- t\.)PY5 kjol- UNnL- lcl(43 THAr TtaArjm3 CtIN/ op sbmmos - At.� ra�ovv,%e i3uiLrr jolz. -M 19 (0 3 L,,;rn4 kaiftow-sm 6 jkm Cl 11 j2 No- 2, LOT Lot f.3,SIZAJ NO - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . cx= D== LoT a gAll+ LUI U, �i U -0 3/4 ) LL. LU rl 2� _7:1 _jl IZ LU LL. CPR- GAeA,&IS 3 I 'q r7 3 SQUAesr F-ioz-r. SQ 6(= Re5lbV-m La7a:w AT -DMe7 CF: PUeO+A66� f f"y lArS�j R;ZCM LcsT 13 5%4a-= 51Memamr cp I tsnqEp— �-QOK —fMS -nmG: CF WHAU— C44.0m;rflp Pr W(JMBRZ C4= Ammais / CckvER-SICYjs HAUS BSS�j MAM Uj(l"+4bLj-r SLtAeAsb SLfteX VRAwl w-s t,(� lic- eAtA+ ftornop) CUABLcjw RMIPosT V=Oe- PJ214c-PMmos -AQZKivm a�A� WEWC 'RW=6 FoufjO * 0,") % pamir Issim Is-r4lTemewr W-1 PQOPGXTY — SV,4jeEC�. bb ( 7 ArQujaE�- PC 0-ompul Tt> P,rt� Cor'�Ss -Tz--,) A li tL'u OG7 Sur, War L- I m mao 1-0 Cr- L4r Qc��� — GSTA T�W54 A- JP-uC-- I-b SLAW ITT-41- Pr�jr.� cu-&P�O�j '6A lit a I T 4D C'ARAC=G� tE.%T- NOCM4 Gb$r CCP.J� Or= I-WGI-L- - SAwMLAtr) q qj JZMutp- M- yu Z57 Z 0 a LLI U- 0 z -T pecr� eits 1�6) IgCn a cjjqqrj PIZ, c1l) - Cie) Qauu3QJ- Ploo PrPPLWATCA-) PCe- \fPfJ4X-(S iRLZ*'- V-'39-113 As/ cir) pie'. -,SrrvA-T- OQ VAr _JA v JWQ SE7 MXAJ (y, A; M PEJe4" I TTEJ T C)p pj-=r 7Rw 15 -rc> coagmr rl.s/ cp i6*rz rn cgj (S� oLrjj+ p-4m;r ccesA*s CtTCCEP—, I jUCo RC��M toSZ> V)AtJ SITJEer MMOM26 V Ar,\ M, Ir t\-)c-) \JpqeA A�,Wcs- MA-V P�� "Pacust� u NLL=S-> A' OF Ttlr=� Q ,02 CRDIANUF MTPiMGIJYAL- Q) Mimimum vpeipwcL=3 T I Q C�P-� pte jvtG7 Reke �j 16 G�KAMwM M AppRoug�, Pr ",JP,9'NJm V->�UE�yr. A" oPTHts:Va-L�iPco C-P-rPERJA Mus-r 'L:ZJF men. 'ri- Is I ffC- AIPPL4CA-WI-_'� RESPON903ILM/ TO nkW -THAT I&L-7� C;:- CP-qE3.!?jA Q UE�\Ot,-)-S I I-H� 6o =tj -Ttis- CASE- OF U-)%WMQ -WM7� 111t:7 st---sm-s -rc� 'Re Pe-� -M Tff�E7 RESPCJQSe 1-0 ilk IREFENTOP The Quesvoxj HL=Y.,A?G- �ZnT- SPMPIC-1 1�� 6)<"Ml"= wtiy A' Ao,,j Nv-�-L-elz--r 7HAT tJGZE'c-:,--->VrAlES jils Amoty Poe.- (7) r MET MCAL- AQEA VJAWEEb Swjp�k- ippJUALEGG: S�UA jlfAr A VAeIPWMr Or- �ftpSPZV VALUIG7 c�p bu� qz-� PP-O>AMrT\j 'CP PP4VAdy Nk�jSjz- LL=jGL-S A-5 A Pfx:pw-ly OWN&-9- No "TA"x p4/0,� 1-0 BE D"dzb CF Rmi A;8 cl-er iovae� VaE�l QEMBJT---1 — '0=-Mrm;;b At-jb Ekag/M (V\ImimufA \fpe-iphkjcL= cwfosP— , Uv� IT tLL mALLs kmc*js ll+r.> Stii- A, LL 00mc*j r-Dp— CMIEP—is 7c�, I-bLLOLLJ cr- us tu, is� -TvOrT ills CRXMI Al lit LL RA— ERA-k.-MtJ(- A VAP-14JCG; --M BS- U., U*, 7Tv �%y App 4Q4,jr _ MM� 0 LI a., Cur. i �j I LU _)AOZQUPA-rS Cp LL- A�jo Sy CIP r�PCPMNC� AM ISM IL.�6 p �m 8, -042P wnRISLO.: oe, i�j 'ITS, ��Vw..- 7711-77----r— _77" 9 rl... SY, dg' Cri /,,C:>F GDVVZt R ul, z 1� 16 5 Q :P0 PLS6 C- a-- Lu Tw 41KNGY or L LU Ul jelj6 C=I+T W tj­Rjt.,JIL A rj/q pp rl qw