20031 81ST AVE W (2).pdfz
cc
W1
LU
U.
T
z i
;1
z
us
U
0
0
LU
LL.
z
As I suspected at our meeting, your reasons for requesting it do not meet the requirements in the
'ordinance for granting a variance. Had you left the structure in the same location as you
proposed in your original request and simply cut 6 feet off the back, no variance would be needed.
Since the space between the shed and the house was acceptable in the first version, it makes no
sense that it became unacceptable in the second plan.
Setbacks are required to protect abutting neighbors. Your neighbors clearly objected to the
placement of the new structure so close to the property line. Since you have ample space to work
with, there is no justification for the variance as the Hearing Examiner has explained. To build
your structure, you will simply have to respect the setback requirements.
You certainly have the right to appeal to the City Council, but I am reasonably certain they would
reach the same conclusion as the Hearing Examiner.
I am sorry no other resolution was possible, but the City ordinances are in place to protect all
property owners. -
Sincerely,
Barbara Fahey
Mayor
BF/dm.
c: Jeff Wilson PlanningSupiprvisor
4
WinWord6\CS97\Cummins
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister Cities International —:Hekinan,'
JR55
-0
-m� "A; K
Z
Cr.
LU:
_J I
La
U1
U.
LA
L)
LU
LL.
Z
E
H
IQs t . 18 9 '-'
D'
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
PIP-
��' r.-
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION 'o't;�NVZD
OF TEE HEARING EXAMINER 3
CrrY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. William A. Cummins
CASE NO.: V 97-54
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 20031 81st Avenue West (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
APPLICATION: Application for a Variance to reduce the required rear setback
(from the east property line) from 15-feet to 7.5-feet to allow the
construction of an approximate 1,200 square foot detached
accessory garage/workshop (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through
4).
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance, Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and issues
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
16.20 (RS - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
20.85 (VARIANCES).
c. c. Compliance with Edmonds City Code (ECDC) Chapter 5.30.120
(VARIANCES).
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section
20.100.010 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Denial
Hearing Examiner Decision: Denial
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and
after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the application was opened at §: 12 am., May 15, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds
Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:42 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and
0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 *
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
10
Z
Cr
,J:
44
CD
UJ
Le
LU
IA.
T
Z
M
L)
0
0
LU
U.
0
Z
0
Hearing Examiner _C,S,on
Case No. V 97-54
Page 3
CORMSPONDENCE:
A letter/petition in opposition, signed by seven neighbors on the sftet behind tl e subject
property, was received (Exhibit B)
MMI—NRS_ OF FACT AM CONQLUSLONS
A. SITE DESCRIMON
I Site Development and Zoning:
a. Eacts.
(1) Size and Shape 7be subject property is apprz)ximately 19,500
square feet (.17 acres) in area and is generally rectangular in' shape
with approximately 135-feet of, frontage on 81stAvenue West and
approximately 150-feet in depth (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
(2) Land Use The subject property is currently developed with an
existing detached single-family residence (see E * it A, Attachment
3).
(3) ZmiLngg: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential - 8,000
square feet minimum lot size (RS-8) (see Exhibit 1).
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a. Facts:
(1) kLo—rth- The area is developed with single-fami y residences and
zoned RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(2) South: The area is developed with single-fami y residences and
zoned RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(3) Ease The area is developed with single-family residences and zoned
RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) MLe—st The area is developed with single-family residences and
zoned RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
b. —Conclusion: Accessory structures are common with th development of
single-family residences. I*
B. HISTORY
1. a. Facts:
(1) The applicant had previously submitted an, app]
variance request to reduce the required rear set]
7.5-feet and increase the maximum permitted h(
structure from 15-feet to 25-feet, under File No.
A, Attachment 5).
:)n for a similar
from 15-feet to
of an accessory
7-4 (see Exhibit
0
z
3
5,
M U.1
0
X Ui I
0!
U ca
UJ us
z
DI
2V
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-54
Page 4
(2) The variance requests submitted under File No. V-97-4 were
processed through the Hearing Exanfiner and a hearing was held on
March 6, 1997. On March 20th, the Hearing Examiner issued his
decision, denying both the variance request to reduce the required
rear setback from 15-feet to 7.5-feet and the request to increase the
maximum permitted height for an accessory structure from 15-feet to
25-feet (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6).
(3) The current variance request to reduce the required rear setback from
15-feet to 7.5-feet is identical to the request that had been submitted
by the applicant under File No. V-974, except, the applicant has
proposed a slightly smaller accessory structure (reduce from 1,440 to
1,200 square feet for a net reduction of 240 square feet), and, the
applicant is not requesting an increase in maximum permitted height
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 5).
(4) The decision denying the variance requests submitted under File No.
V-97-4 concluded the following as applied to the request to reduce
the required rear setback (see Sections B.2.b. 1) and .5) on page 5 of
Exhibit A, Attachment 6):
1) "Special Circumstances do not appear to exist since the
applicant appears to have considerable space in the rear
portion of his property and should easily be able to locate a
garage and comply with the setback requirements of the RS-8
zone. %%ile slopes do exist on the subject property, they do not
appear to restrict the options available to the applicant on the
southeast portion of the site. Therefore, special circumstances
do not appear to exist in that the applicant could locate a
garage in the rear portion of his property without encroaching
on side or rear setbacks. "
5) "7he request is not the minimum necessaryfor accommodation
of the garage in that the applicant could comply with existing
setbacks and still enjoy the full use of the garage. The
applicant could move the garage forward on the site, reduce
the size of the garage or change the dimensions of the garage
(i.e. make it longer, but not as deep) so that it can fit within the
to
in- required serback a a.
(5) The decision of the Hearing Examiner issued for the requests
submitted under File No. V-97-4 was not appealed.
0 b. Conclusiow. While the applicant has reduced the proposed accessory
structure, from 40-feet in width by 36-feet in depth to 40-feet in width to
30-feet in depth, the applicant has not reduced the requested variance for
the rear setback by a corresponding amount. In- as much as decision
denying the request submitted under File No. V-97-4 concluded that the
proposed variance was not the minimum necessary, the current request
must also fail. It appears that the applicant did attempt to follow the
'UMM"T 7
, ,, M7,2 7T
0
.7
_V
aring Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-54
Page 5
guidance offered by the Hearing Examiner in his decision on File No. V-
Z 97-4 by reducing the depth of the proposed structure by 6-feet, however,
the reduction in the depth did not translate in anyway in a corresponding
reduction in the request to intrude into the required rear setback.
U C. STATE ENVHtONM,ENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
U 01
W Lul a. Fact: The application is exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11 -
.J i_; 800(l)(b)(i).
W IL
0 b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of
SEPA.
D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
U1, 1. a. Facts:
Z
�_ 0 (1) Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
Z
LUI 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a vgGance from the
standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in
ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets
0
forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied
X on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would
result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship.
(2) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with
L) which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the
8
Z Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance
must exist (special circumstances include: size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings of the property and public necessity for
public structures); no special privilege is granted; the proposal is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the
proposal will not be detrimental; and, the proposal is the minimum
necessary to allow reasonable use of the subject property.
(3) Variance may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be
used to modify use or procedural requirements.
0 (4) The applicants request to modify the minimum required rear setback
requirement for the RS-8 zone.
(5) The applicants declarations in response to the required review
criteria are contained on Exhibit A, Attachment 4.
b. gonclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances - Special circumstances do not appear to exist
on the subject property which would preclude the reasonable� use Of
the subject property as a single-family residence. The subject
property appears to contain considerable developable area which the
applicant could use without the necessity of being granted a variance.
The necessity for the variance appears to be directly related to the
7 "r,
0
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-54
Page 6
size of the accessory structure the applicant is proposing and not due
z
to the constraint on placement of the proposed accessory structure
directly related to some unique feature of the property itself which
limits for
the options the applicant to use the site.
<
W
(2) S12ecial Privilege - While the applicant has indicated that other
d 51
01
variances may have been granted within the vicinity of the subject
property, that applicant has not provided any specific evidence to
indicate the nature of the other developments. Tberefore, it is
T 0
UJ
appropriate to conclude at this time, that granting a variance for an
accessory" structure and not the primary use -of the property would
U. <
be a grant of special privilege. Denial of the requested variance
I _. :�:.�,
M) C1
would not deny the applicant the ability to continue the primary
X
permitted use of the property as a single-family residence.
z
0,
(3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan - The requested variance
Z
is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see Exhibit A,
LU W
Is =�
Section H.F) or the Zoning Code.
50
M
0
(4) Not Detrimental Approval of the requested variance could very
0
well be detrimental to the adjacent property owners through the lose
L"
X
of privacy resulting from the construction of a very substantial
structure within very close proximity to the common property lines.
Seven nearby property owners signed a letter/petition in opposition
to the request (see Exhibit B). One of the neighbors who signed the
letter/petition in opposition shares the rear property line with the
z
applicant and could be negatively impacted if the variance for a
reduced rear yard setback we're to be approved.
(5) Minimum Reguired - While the applicant has reduced the square
footage and more importantly, the depth of the proposed accessory
structure, this has not translated into a significant reduction in the
request to intrude into the required rear setback from the proposal
that was denied under File No. V-97-4. The request as submitted
does not appear to be the minimum necessary, since the revised
0
dimensions (depth) of the structure, the applicant has further reduced
the need for any encroachment and could now more easily locate the
structure on the site without the need for any setback variance at all.
E. TECHNICAL COMNUTTEE
1. a. Facts:
(1) The Engineering Division has submitted corrunents related to the
subject application, these comments are provided as Exhibit A,
Attachment 7.
(2) Even though specific comments were not provided by. all
Departments or Divisions within the City, it is still the applicants
responsibility to comply with applicable City development
regulations at the time of any building permit sub mittal.
-T
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-54 z
Page 7
b. Conclusion:
The applicant should comply with all requirements placed on
theproposed development by other DepartmentsIDMsions of the City.
F. CO'AWREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. a. Ea-cr The subject property is designated as "Single Family large Lot."
b. Conclusion: The proposed use of the subject property is consistent with
WE
the typical uses envisioned with single-family development, therefore., it is
consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land use designation for
0 the subject site.
2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section,
identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development!' in
the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed iridetail below:
(1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential
development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyles of
I W! Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted...
(a (2) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not
be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments.
(3) Page 31, subsection B.6 state, "Require that new residential
development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes,
soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
b. Conclusion The proposed development is inconsistent with the above
r adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential
property in the City, in that the neighbors to the east and south could find a
din-dritition of their sense of privacy due to the encroachment of the
accessory structure toward their property. The City should be -particularly
sensitive to this issue in light of the fact that the applicant's request
pertains to an accessory structure and is not related tt a request to seek
relief from the required setbacks to due to natural constraints of the
property which would adversely affect the development of the site with the
primary use of a single-fan-dly residence.
F 11 XOT 9 1 M61,
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is denied.
Case No. V 97-54
Page 8
Entered this 29th day of May, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Cr.
<
UJ
-J
CD LU;
UJ M
-J �- I! Ron McConnell
W U.
LU 0 Hearing Examiner
U. < RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
D a
Ui 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
0
Z I--! contact the Planning Department for further procedural information.
51 UJI
's =)�
::; in, A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
01 Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
04
C,
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date
of the initial decision by any person who a ' ttends the public hearing and signs the
U. 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
0 criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed.
z
B. APPEALS
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall
include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of
the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their inter�.&t..,
in the matter, reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong, and all
required appeal fees. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development
Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
IV. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Exan-dner
request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's
Office.
V. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.105.020A & B descr�be how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in wrifing, and shall include
the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the
decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the
0
zt
us I
us
7�1
:MAY
15. i 997
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY'YOMN AMEADDRE SS AND ZIP
'
CODE, BELOW IF YOU WISH TO'SP:EAK ON THIS.It tM'
--------------------------------------------------
cc
W97-54 WILUAM A. CUMMI ks
i A
L4'' -A- �iA 94A-k
Lu
Lu
z
cc
(A
UJ
LA i
z
U
0
a
LU
LL
0
z
'N
4 'T
Aft
Arc
�20111 80th Ave W6st'
City of Bc1himnds
250 - 5th. AVefiAje North NO
Edmonds, MA 98026
774-4160
May, 12, 1997
Attn./Jeff.Wilson File #V-474A
Dear kr.� Wilson:
we the undersigned oppose the variance request r 20031 Sist Avenue:Nest?
Edmonds, WA. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Kenneth and Joan Zukoski
kv -
M Z M, � �
/V I -
LVA- -
. . . . . . . . - - - - - - -
�`EDMONDSHE XAMINE.W.'.
MAY.15,1997AT19:00A�
ids
1. PlazaRoom.Edmol Library
�'450 Street
1. ��'QU to Order
.j
U 01
LU
2. Public Hearings
U) U.
YL e
'Sp $ftufiVAt ' for a Variance, nummunn sW
a. FMENO,V.97-61, AP06afibab Arni .1 C
—0
Ui
I
heW froln 14-fed tD:Ljqfecj 7�ijochca fora neW builft MUU�ted sig�. Tice 1546i ict MPCIW is
P
:3
located at 300 A&WW Wayand is
(n D
— C)
b. FILE NO. EX-97-21 Application by An* A66od for a Conditional Use Perinit f�r an 'AzoessM
3:
D�Vdft in _an- Wd8ft- SijWe_fijnijy fesidence located at 24107,76th AVenUe West
Z
proposed "accessory dmft unit"will be, housed, in anew addition t6�L 'ft wdstiq residence. no
Z
subject propcity is zoned M-8,
LU LUI
FILENOA-97-54 Application byWilliaii A. Cwmnins for a Variance to reduce the.re*�d rear
U),
0 ;-
Seda& (ffoM the Lad propedy EM) ftm 15-fed - to 7.5-fed _Lto anoW to CoustMCtioft, of an.
I �,]J��
subject
WrwdmaW 1,200 square foot accessory pmgdwo&hM. pWrty is located at
8 Ist Avenue West and is zoned RS-8.
U.
3. Administrative Reports -No 'PoftS.
JtA_
4. Adjournamt
0
Z
0
0
PAP JMLE
"G AM b=TMG ROOMS ARE ACCF FOR PERSOA-VM.DISABHMrIES
(Contact the City Clerk at 771-024S with 24 hours adVance noticefor spd�.W�
OUNIMOCAOMMAM
0
Z
Cr
(jo
(n a
a) LU
LU
-j
Le U0-
:3
U.
(n
T
Z
I.- C
Z �-
W LL
0-
a
W U
X IL
LU Cl
Z
M
&A
H
CITY OF EDMONDS
2M SM AVMXM WMIn WM0ND% WA 99020
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT
MDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO: RON McCONNELL, HEARING EXAMINER.
FROM: -.4
S. Wilson, AICP
Current Planning Superviper
DATE: May 8,1997
FILE: V-97-54
HEARING DATE9 TIME, AND PLACE: MAY 15.1227 AT-9:00 AM
Plaza Room - Edmonds Library
650 Main Street
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
hat
Application............................................................................................................................... 1
2
Recommendation...........................................................................................................................
2
SiteDescription ............................................................................................................................
2
Higory..........................................................................................................................................
3
SweEnvironmental Policy Act (SEPA) ........................................................................................
4
FAmonds Community Denlopmod Cc& (ECDC) Compliance ............................. I .........................
4
TechnicalCornmittee .....................................................................................................................
5
ComprehensivePlan (ECDC) ................................................................................................. I ........
6
Requestfor Reconsideration ..........................................................................................................
6
Appeals.............................................................. W ...................................... I .................................
7
I,apse of Approval ........................................................................................................................
�7
Noticeto the County Assessor .......................................................................................................
7
Appendices.............................................................................................................................
�7
Partiesof Record ................. ....................................................................................................
7
EXHIBIT ItA!#
FILE NO. V-"-54
a
0
Z
CC
0
LU
LU
W LL
LU 0
2 �:
* :3
U. <
CO) M
C1
LU
Z
Z
LU LIJ
0
a
Uj
Uj (j
Z
3. Applicafion for a Variance, to redtice die mpuvd rear. setback (fiam die cast
property lim) fiorn 15-fod to 7.5-fed to allow, t1w construction of an approximate Iaoo
square fixt detached accessory pTwJwmksbop (we Attachments 2 through 4).
4. RMjULP_roW_s: Variance, Hearing Examiner conducts public bearing and Lam final
decision.
Mdor Twer.
a. Compliance with Edmonds Ceinmumity Developnumt Code (ECDC) Chapter
16.20 (RS - SINGLE-FAMILY RESMENTIAL).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
2om (VARIANCES).
C. Compliance with Edmonds City Code (ECDC) Chapter 5.30120 (VARIANCES).
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section
20.100.010 OWARING ECAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND
MYCOUNCILREVIEW).
B. RECOMNENDATION
Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this repoit we recommend
deaW of the applicanies request.
H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a. faqW.
(1) Eize Sh -* The subjod property is approximately 19.500 squar f
AgL__W 0 ed
17 acm) in area mid is generally rectangular in shape with approximately
0 135-fed of fivatage on 81st Avenue Wed and appro)gmately 150-fixt in
depth (see AftachwAt 3).
(2) Land : The subject property is currently developed with an existing
detached shigle-flunily reside= (see Auwlmcnt 3).
(3) ZnLng The subject site is zoned Singl�Family Residential - 8,000 square
W minin= lot size (ItS-9) (see Exhibit 1).
REPORMWAMESMIS
11, WN
77,79 '77
n]
z
oil
(D
U) I
UJ:
-J I
Le �
LU .
U.
T)
X
z
z
L)
0
a
UJ
LL
w
Y
8
z
E
IV]
MSTORY
1. a.
(1)
(2)
(3)
The applicant had previously submitted an;application for a similar variance
request to "do, the required rear scft& fiem .1 5-fed t a 7.5-fed and
iwlw�= the o
maxunum permitted height of an accessory structure from 15-
foct to 25-fxt� under File No. V-97-4 (sw AtWbned 3).
The variance, requests submitted under File No. V-97-4. were processed
through the H=* Examiner and A hearing was hold on March 0. - 1997.
On March 20th, the Hearing Examiner msued his decision, denying both the
variance request to reduce the required rear setback from IS-FwA to 7.5-fect
and the request to incrmse the maximumpermitted-height fmr an accessory
structure fi=n 15-fect to 25-fed (see Attaclunent 6).
IU currat variance request to reduce the required W setback fim 15-
fi)d to 7.5-fed is identical to the request that had been submitted by the
applicant under File No V 97-4. except, the applicant has proposed a
sligWy smaller accessory structure (reduce from 1,440 to 1,200 square fed
for a net reductim of 240 square fed), ar4 the applicant is not requesting
an increase in maximum permitted h** (sw Aftwhnent 5).
(4) The decision dmM the variance requests submitted under File No V-974
concluded the following as applied to the request to reduce the repued rear
setback (Sw Sc6fions B.2.b. 1) and.5) on page 5 ofAttwbrient 6):
1) "Special Circumstances do not appear to eidst since the applicant
appears to have considerable space in the rear pardon of his
Property and should easily be able to locate a garage and comply
with. the setback requirements of the RS-8 zone. While slopes do
crist on the subject property, they do not appear to resoict the
options available to the applicant on the. southeas.tporflon of the
site. Therefore, special circumstances do not appear to e;dst in that,
0
z
t
Cr
LU
J
41
I
LU
-J
LA
US
T) i
Z
M
U
0
a
LU
U.
z
Pf �
E;�
fim 40-fad in width by 36-fect in depth to 40-fed in width to 30-fed in depth,
the applicant has not reduced do requested variance for 6* war seflack by a
amount. In as much as decision dianying the request submitted
under File No. V-97-4 concluded that dw proposed variam was not tbe- rdu*u*mum
necessary, the; current request must also fitil., It appears that the applicant did
attempt W follow the guWancc offized by the Hmipg Examiner in his decision on
File No. V-97-4 by reducing the depth of the proposed structure by 6-fivt�
however, the reduction in the depth did not trawlate in anyway in a corresponding
reduction in the request to intrude'into the required rcar setback.
C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
1. a. Evt 11m application is w=Wt fiom SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11-
800(l)(bXi).
b. gmqlusiow. The applicant and the City have satisfied dw requirements of SEPA.
D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. a. Facts:
(1) Eilmonds Community Mvelopment Code (ECDC), Chapter 20.15B.180.A,
sta an applicant may request a variance: fim the standards of this
ampter pursuant to the procedures set kdh in ECDC Chapter 20.85
(Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby
a provision of the Code may be varied on a caw -by -case basis if the
application of the provision would result in an unusual and unrcasonable
hardship.
(2) ECDC Section 20-83-010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a
varW= request must comply in order to be granted by the Hmring
Examiner. These criteria include:, a special circumstance, must add
(Special circumstances include: size, shap% Umraphy, location or
surroundings of ft property and public necessity fi)r public structures); no
special privilege is granted; the proposal is inconsistent with the
Cc:Vrd=ive Plan and the Zoning Code, the propwal will not be
detrimental; and, the proposal is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable
use of the, subject property.
(3) Varianw nay be used to modify bulk standards. They nay not be used to
modify use or procedural requirements.
0
z
�5
-J L),
0;
LU,
LU
-J
Cn U.
UJ 0
2 �
R -J
LL
T) CI
x W
�- Mi
z I-1,
0
�; 1--,
LU LU
0-
01--
LIJ
U.
F-
0
z
CIF
E-1
b.
(4) The applicants request to modify the minimum required rear scft&
requkernent for the RS-8 zonc.
(3) The applicants declarations in response to the required review critena, are
contained on Attachment 4.
C0910sim
(1) Smial Mr-y—An—umn-m - Special circurnstances do not appear tr, odst an the
subject property which woWd preclude die reasonable use of do subject
property as a shigle-flimily residence. The subject property appears to
contain considerable da-Mopable, am which the applicant could use witliout
the necessity of being gianted a variance. 11m wcessity for the variance
appears to be directly related, to the size of the accessory structure the
applicant is proposing (approximately the size of a small house), and not
due to the constraint on placement of the proposed accessory structure
directly related to some unique feature of the property itself which limits die
options for die applicant to use the site.
(2) -Sgp—cW Privilew - While the applicant has indicated that other variances
may have bow grarawd within the vicinity of the subject property, that
applicant has not provided any specific evidence to indicate die nature of die
other developments. Micrefore, it is appropriate to conclude at this time,
69 grairting a variance for an "accessory" structure and not the primary
use of the property would be a grant of special privilege. DmW of the
requested variance would not deny the applicant the ability to continue the
primary permitted use of the property as a sirigle�fonfly residerice.
(3) 7--Qnim Code and the Comprehensive _Plan - The requested variance is not
consistent with the Comprichensive Plan (see Section HY below) or the
Zoning Code.
(4) Not Detrimental - Approval of the requested variance could very well be
detrimental to the adjacent property owners through the lose of privacy
resultirig from the construction of a very substantial structure within very
close proxitnity t9 the common property Jim.
(5) Mmunum B—ecLutred - VA& the applicant has reduced the square footage
and more importantly, the depth of the proposed acmsory structure, this
has not translated into a reduction in the request to intrude into dw required
rear setback from the proposal 69 was derited under File No V-97-4. The
request as submitted does not appear to be the minimum necessary, since the
revised dimensions (depth) of the structure, the applicant has Mier
reduced the need fDr any encroachment mW could now more easily locate the
structure on the site without the need fi)r any setback variance at an.
E. TECEMCAL CONRMWEE
1. a. Facts:
(1) Mw Engineering Division has submitted comments related to the, subject
Wlication, these comments are provided as Attachment 7.
(2) Even though spocific comments were not provided by all Departments or
Divisions within the Chy, it is still the applicants respowbuity, to coniply
V97-54MOCWUAY-M
RWMnTrARraMMT3
0
Z
ZJ
F- Lur
CC
LU
0
cn Q�
cn LU
LU
U) U.
UJ 0
U.
en M
a
UJ
Z
UJ LU
0-1
C3 t;
LU
:C
U-
UJ (n
0
z
V-
F
E114-
V(�. A. CU.W=
; F& 4& V-97-54
;;;6of7
with applicable City development regulations at the time of any building
permit submittal.
b. Conclusion The applicant should comply with all requirements placed on the
proposed development by other Departniomts/Divisions of the City.
F. CONWREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family large LA30
b. Concli
usion The proposed use of the subject property is consistent with
typical uses envisioned with single-family development, thmfore, it is consistent
with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land use designation for the subject site.
2. a. Facts: Tlic Comprehensive Plan, RcsidenW Development section, identifics goals
and policies which relate to "Itesidential Development7' in the City. Specific goals
and Policies are discussed in detail below-
(1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential
development which is appropriate to the diverse lifevyies of Edmonds
residents should be maintained andpromoted...
(2) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be
threatened by view, trafflc, or land use encroachments. "
(3) Page 31, subsection B.6 state, "Require that new residential development
be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology,
vegetation and drainage. "
b. Conclusion: 11c proposed development is inconsistent with the above adopted
goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the
City, in that the neighbors to the cast and soutli could find a diminution of there
sense of privacy due to the encroachment of the accessory structure toward their
property. Tlie City should be particularly sensitive to this issue in fight of the fiict
that the applicant's request perWw to an accessory structure and is not related to
a request to seek relief from the required setbacks to due to natural constraints of
the property which would adversely affect the development of the site with the
primary use of a single-flimily residence. .
III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
Tlic following is a summary of the acadlines 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 inforniation.
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 1*10
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) woddng days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the amendance 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 ordinai= governing
the type of application being reviewed.
9
1.1
10
L ;)*A.CMWJ=
*I. V-97-34
hp747
IL' APPIMS
Section 20.105.020.A .13 describe how appeals of a Hicaring Emuniner decision or
be made. The appeal shall be made in wrift and " include the
z
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the daft of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing do decision, their interest in the matter, reasons why
ft appellant beliam the decision to be wrw& and all required appeal few. The appeal must
cc
be filed with to Community Demlopment Director within ten (10) working days after the date
U
of the decision being appealed.
H 0�
(J)
(n
LU
IV. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASS
SESSOR
1�
W U.
0
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a
clump in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
U.
T a
LU
V. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
z
Section 2a,101020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Exandner dedslon or
zR
recommendation shall be made. Ike appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
LU LU:
23
deckdon being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of she deddon, Me
namw of the ln&vMuat or group appeffling the dedslon, their interest in the noMer, and reasons
0
a �-
why the qpWant belleves the decision to be wrong. 7*e apped must be fled with the
I
CAwmnfty Develapnwo Diredw wfthin ten (10) working days after the date of the dwbkn
UJ
being qpralet
U.
VI. APPENDICES
0
Attachments I through 7 am attached.
z
1. vicinity / Zoning map
2. Application
3. Site Plan
4. Declarations of the Applicant
5. Planning Division Staff Report and Aftacliments Prepared for File No. V-97-7
6. Findings, Conclusions and Decision of the Hearing Examiner for File No. V-97-4
7. Faginacrigg Division Project Review Cmuneut Memoranduzn, datcd 4/10/97
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
01 Applicant
Edmonds Planning Division
Edmonds Public Works Division
Edmonds Engineering Division
Edmonds Parks & Recxtation Division
Edmonds Fire DelwUncut
V97-MMOMMAY-W
RVORUWAFFaMOM
0